Expert answer:Assignment BGMT 409
Solved by verified expert:This is an assignment in my Organizational Theory & Behavior (exam) (BGMT 409)Make you answer simple and shortSee the file attached it has all the details for the questions, the article you need to read is here (you can find it in the internet also):Jerry Harvey’s Definition of Cheating (Attached)The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, W. Edwards Deming (You can find that online also)The Alliance paradox (attached)you don’t need to read everything, you can find highlight and summary in the internet also make your answer short no need for a lot of details
orgtheorybehavior_exam2_fall2017.docx
encouraging_future_managers_to_cheat_by_jerry_harvey_book.pdf
abilene_paradox_management_of_agreement_by_jerry_harvey.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY & BEHAVIOR, EXAM 2
OCTOBER 14, 2017
PAGE 1 OF 1
Please write your name on the first sheet & initialize all others: Student Name: ________________________
This is an individual assignment.
Answer all questions succinctly, comprehensively, and legibly.1
Be creative, and present in-depth and clear reasoning. Good Luck, and Have Fun!
Question 1, Should Managers Cheat?
5 points
Explain Jerry Harvey’s definition of cheating to the CEO. What new concepts have you learned reading
this article that the CEO should consider implementing in the organization today? Why?
Question 2, Abilene Paradox:
5 points
Explain the Abilene Paradox to the CEO. Is it possible to avoid Abilene? What could you recommend to
management to escape going to Abilene in the enterprise?
Abilene Paradox book chapter: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0apITffZbNKaHdaMjhqOHFLdlE/edit
Question 3, Organization Out of the Crisis:
5 points
Are American organizations in crisis today? Explain your reasoning, having read Deming’s chapters 1-6.
How would you get the modern American organization out of the crisis (if one is in it) using the works of
W. Edwards Deming? Explain Deming’s organizational theory. What practical advice could you offer to
the CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation based on Deming’s ideas?
Extra Credit Only, Eichmann in the Organization / 21st Century: discretionary points
In his article, Eichmann in the Organization, Jerry Harvey discusses many organizational and human
concepts and dilemmas. What is he talking about in this article? Please explain who/what Adolf
Eichmann represents in the article. Who are the Danes? What did they do? How does Harvey’s work
relate to Milgram’s, and if it does, how? Overall, explain the concept of organizational and human good
and evil based on the ideas of this article and Milgram’s book, Obedience to Authority (read Milgram’s
chapters 1-7).
Eichmann in the Organization article: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0apITffZbNKbHlBdmVpU05uQjQ/edit
Obedience to Authority book: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0apITffZbNKRlBHQ3Z6M1hVT1k/edit
Where do you see Eichmann, Organization in Crisis, and Obedience to Authority in the 21st century? Do
you think these concepts are still valid, and if so, where, and how? What are your views on these
subjects?
Due Monday, November 13, 2017.
Late submissions will not be accepted (University policy).
1
If I cannot read your answer, this means you have not answered the question.
COPYRIGHT © SERGEY IVANOV, 2017, SIVANOV@UDC.EDU
ENCOURAGING STUDENTS TO CHEAT:
ONE THOUGHT ON THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN TEACHING ETHICS AND
TEACHING ETHICALLY
_
Jerry B. Harvey
The George Washington University
As a professor of organization behavior I have long believed that I have
ethical responsibility to encourage students in my classes to cheat. Recently, that belief was enhanced when my son applied for admission to the
University of Virginia, an institution which prides itself on its Honor System. Reading the application materials, he found that, &dquoOn all written work
done by students at the University of Virginia, the following pledge is either
required or implied: ’On my honor as a student, I have neither given nor
an
received aid on this assignment.&dquo’ He was also warned that anyone who
breaches that pledge commits academic fraud, is in violation of the Honor
System, and will be expelled from the university (Academic Fraud and the
Honor System, The University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va., undated.)
Although other universities may not have formal honor codes, giving and
receiving aid on written assignments, particularly examinations, generally
is frowned upon and usually is accorded the more commonplace title of
&dquocheating.&dquo Regardless of the semantics used to describe such nefarious
behavior, the penalities for engaging in it tend to be severe.
Does it strike you as odd, though, that virtually all educational institutions in our culture, from kindergarten through college, define cheating as
&dquogiving aid to others or receiving aid from them?&dquo More specifically, does
it strike you as unusual that we define cheating as an act of helping or being
helped by others? Does it seem in any way peculiar to you that an expression of altruism has become an avatar of behavior that is immoral, dishonorable, and sullied? Alternatively, does it not strike you as bizarre that, by
defining cheating as the process of helping others, we implicitly are saying
that not being helpful, that being narcissistic and selfish, is a prototypical
expression of academic decency-and honor?
It does me. In fact, I believe our defining cheating in that way is unethical, immoral, and consequently, educationally unsound; unless of
course one of our purposes as educators is to provide training in the attitudes and skills required for destroying ourselves and others. To define
cheating as giving and receiving aid creates a whole range of problems,
problems which I know few of us want or intend to create. I will discuss the
most important problems below.
1
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on May 19, 2008
© 1984 The Organizational Behavior Teaching Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
unauthorized distribution.
It Causes Anaclitic
Depression
.
For those who are unfamiliir with the term, the word &dquoanaclitic&dquo means
&dquoto lean on.&dquo Thus, anaclitic depression is a primitive, universal form of
depression which occurs when we have no one to lean on for emotional
support or when someone on whom we lean for such support is taken away.
It leads to &dquomarasmus,&dquo which means &dquoto waste away.&dquo Thus, those of us
who have the unfortunate experience of suffering from anaclitic depression
will waste away, both physically and mentally (Spitz, 1946). Furthermore,
given that anaclitic depression is a primitive, inborn, and universal reaction
to the experience of being emotionally separated or isolated from others,
it is no respecter of persons. It strikes both male and female, infant and
adult, educated and uneducated, rich and poor, student and faculty.
Spitz (1946), for example, found that infants who were deprived of
emotional support became weepy and lethargic, suffered insomnia, refused
to eat, and withdrew into themselves. In short, they developed anaclitic
depression; and in the absence of intervention by a supportive adult, they
went into a state of marasmus, a state which at times resulted in death. Of
those who recovered physically, Spitz saw evidence that they suffered permanent emotional damage. Or, as Carl Jung might describe it, they received irreparable injuries to their souls.
Anaclitic depression and marasmus also afflict adults. In his book, The
Broken Heart: The Medical Consequences of Loneliness (1977), James
Lynch provides persuasive evidence that, in our culture, loneliness is a
major cause of premature death from heart disease and a number of other
maladies which cause early death. Loneliness, in turn, is the word we adults
use to describe our feelings of anaclitic depression. That loneliness, if
prolonged, leads to marasmus no less severe in adults than in infants.
Indeed, the broken heart is not a figment of the poet’s imagination, as any
competent cardiologist will tell you.
Anaclitic depression and marasmus occur not only in individuals but
also in organizations and institutions. For example, Philip Slater, in The
Pursuit of Loneliness: American Culture at the Breaking Point (1970), contends that in a misguided quest to insure our sense of individuality, we have
designed bureaucracies and institutions that thwart our needs for community, engagement, and dependence; and in doing so we have brought our
culture to the breaking point. Translated into my language, he is saying that
we have built organizations and institutions which create anaclitic depression and marasmus on a massive scale, and by doing so we are destroying
the human fabric required to insure our culture’s survival.
For me, then, it is not a trivial matter when we educators define cheating
as &dquogiving and receiving help.&dquo It is not trivial because by doing so we are
creating an environment which fosters anaclitic depression and marasmus,
one which threatens the survival of individuals, organizations, institutions,
and cultures. In addition, we are denying our students and ourselves
2
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on May 19, 2008
© 1984 The Organizational Behavior Teaching Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
unauthorized distribution.
the opportunity to express
altruism.
It Thwarts the
one
Expression
of the
highest
forms of human
decency,
of Altruism
Altruism, &dquothe constructive and instinctually gratifying service to others&dquo (Vaillant, 1977, p. 386), the process of &dquogetting pleasure from giving
to others what you yourself would like to receive&dquo (p. 110), is one of the
most constructive expressions of mental health in an individual. According
to Vaillant, it allows us to &dquointegrate reality, interpersonal relationships,
and private feelings&dquo (p. 385). It &dquoprovides a protective filter for the most
searing emotions&dquo (p. 110). It allows us to express empathy and sympathy
for others. It is a truly elegant Adaptation to Life. (Vaillant, 1977).
Working from a physiological rather than psychological perspective,
stress researcher Hans Seyle (1974) contends that altruistic egotism, the
process of earning the love of one’s neighbor, &dquopermits you to express your
talents by the most powerful means of maintaining security and peace of
mind&dquo (p. 5). Expressed in the synergy of teamwork, such altruism permits
the experience of stress to inspire &dquonot only physical endurance and fortitude, but even mental feats … &dquo(p. 73).
Finally, Edward Wilson (1978), the famous sociobiologist suggests that
altruism, &dquoGenerosity without hope of reciprocation&dquo (p. 149), is a &dquotranscendental quality that distinguishes human beings from animals&dquo (p. 150),
is transmitted from generation to generation genetically, and is a requirement for the survival of any culture.
Once again, I do not consider it to be inconsequential when we educators define cheating as &dquogiving and receiving help on examinations.&dquo It is
not inconsequential because we are saying, in essence, that.it is immoral for
students to develop their capacities for expressing altruism, one of the truly
healthy adaptations to life. Ultimately we are saying that to assist in the
culture’s care and survival is dishonorable and that one of our jobs as
educators is to insure, if possible, that an important skill required for
survival is not transmitted to future generations. Thank God that His
Department of Genetics is deaf to our mindless babble.
It Thwarts the
Expression of Synergy
Requiring that students work in lonely isolation from one another also
expression of synergy and teamwork. It denies what we OB
for
whom the NASA exercise (Hall, Psychology Today, 1971)
professors,
has achieved catechismic significance, have long known. That is, when
human beings work together they can produce a piece of work which is
superior to the work of individuals toiling alone. It denies the reality of the
research on High Performing Systems by my colleague, Peter Vaill, who
observed that, &dquoA .350 hitter is not just a .350 hitter, typically, but a .350
thwarts the
3
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on May 19, 2008
© 1984 The Organizational Behavior Teaching Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
unauthorized distribution.
hitter in context&dquo (Vaill, 1978, p.111). Stated differently, many individuals
perform their best only in the context of working with others. In short,
it ignores the reality of what we know and what, ostensibly, we ask our
students to learn.
I say &dquoostensibly&dquo because when &dquoexamination&dquo time comes we say,
&dquoAlthough we have asked you to read the literature on participation, collaboration, teamwork, and synergy; and although we have given you a
number of opportunities to experience those dynamics in classroom
demonstrations and exercises, we don’t want you (or us) to have the opportunity to really experience it. We just want you to learn about it. We don’t
want you to actually practice it.&dquo
When we do that, the enormous difference between our espoused theories and our actual practices (Argyris and Schon, 1978) becomes clear.
The fact that we sanction such educational hypocrisy has profound implications, not only for our discipline, but also for the culture at large. I am
particularly struck by the cruel irony of the manner in which examinations
on the topic of &dquobusiness ethics&dquo are conducted with marasmic enforcers,
called proctors, prowling the room to prevent any overt display of individual mental health and altruistic community building. Understanding that
irony, I have become acutely aware of the momentous difference between
teaching the ethics of OB and teaching OB ethically. In my opinion, unless
we become aware of and act on our awareness of that difference, our
discipline will lose its credibility which, I opine is its only unique claim to
relevance.
can
It Provides
a
Lousy
Model for How Work
Really
Gets Done
In his classic study on how managers spend their time, Mintzberg (1973)
found that the typical manager spends about twenty percent of his/her time
working alone. The remaining eighty percent is spent talking with others on
the telephone, in face-to-face meetings with other individuals, or in group
meetings. Surgeons don’t go into the operating room and say to the nurses,
aides, and fellow physicians who surround them, &dquoIt is against my principles
to give or receive aid during surgery.&dquo I know of no football player who, as
a moral imperative, demands that his teammates leave the field before he
agrees to carry the ball. And as my colleague Peter Vaill pointed out, he has
never heard of anyone in any organization, other than academia, being
given a job to do with the admonition, &dquoAs a matter of honor, don’t seek
help from anyone or give help to anyone as you do it.&dquo (You might be
interested to know that when I called Peter to check the accuracy of his
quotation, he refused to talk with me about it, asserting that to do so would
constitute an unethical act of cheating.)
Whether or not you agree with the theory and research of anaclitic
depression, marasmus, altruism, and synergy, I think most of you will agree
with the pragmatic observation that the world in which actual work is
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on May 19, 2008
© 1984 The Organizational Behavior Teaching Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
unauthorized distribution.
4
accomplished requires that we give and receive aid, rather than withhold or
reject it. Consequently, defining cheating as we do has relevance only for
organizations in which accomplishing real work is unimportant and maybe
even actively discouraged.
Realizing that, I have had a number of conversations about my academic ethics with the dark side of my soul, or that part of my psyche Carl
Jung would undoubtedly refer to as my shadow. A typical conversation,
and its resolution, which ultimately took the form of a new definition of
cheating with which I am ethically satisfied, is reported, without editorial
comment, with my shadow speaking first.
My Shadow: &dquoWhat is the purpose of all these exercises and experiential
events you use in the classroom? In essence, what do you hope to accomplish by using them?&dquo
Me: &dquoI want to give students the opportunity to experience the effect of
trust, participation, collaboration, teamwork, synergy, and stuff like that.&dquo
My Shadow: &dquoThat ’stuff’ you describe seems to deal primarily with
values. Do you actually think those values are worthwhile?&dquo
Me: &dquoOf course. If I didn’t would I spend so much time and energy
trying to help students understand their relevance for the way organizations
operate?&dquo
My Shadow: &dquoWell, if you really believe those values are important and
relevant do you allow your students to collaborate, cooperate, participate,
synergize, or whatever the hell you want to call it on their tests?&dquo
Me (rather lamely): &dquoNot on the actual tests. But, I strongly encourage
them to study together right up to the time of the exam.&dquo
My Shadow (smiling sardonically): &dquoOh. So you back down when the
crunch comes and do it like the rest of us. Well, let me tell you what I think.
The difference between you and me is that I’m no hypocrite. I believe you
have to kick ass and deal one-on-one. I do exactly what I say I believe
in. You don’t. That kind of hypocrisy must be tough on you and your
students. &dquo
As my shadow turned on his heel and walked out, I realized that he had
shot an arrow in mine and that part of my Achilles tendon was showing. I
also realized that he must have seen in me what I have seen in managers
who espouse the glories of collaboration and teamwork in one breath and
in the next announce a competitive bonus plan, one which pits individual
salespersons against one another. Regardless of whether I see it in them or
me, I tend to feel both angry and sad. On my better days, I can laugh at the
ironic foolishness of it all.
A New Definition of
Cheating
For the reasons I have discussed, I think we are on shaky ethical and
moral grounds any time we choose to define cheating as giving and receiving aid on any assignment. On the one hand we are saying that it is
5
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on May 19, 2008
© 1984 The Organizational Behavior Teaching Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
unauthorized distribution.
moral and ethical to create anaclitic depression and marasmus, to deny the
opportunity to express altruism, to insure that the competence and elation
of synergy cannot be experienced, and to train people to behave in ways
real work is unlikely to be done. On the other hand we are saying it is not
only our job to create the dynamics of such sickness, but also, in a stroke
of Orwellian doublethink, that it is our job to call such sickness &dquohealth,&dquo
and to convince ourselves and others of the efficacy of that euphemism by
contending it is an expression of decency and honor. I don’t believe any of
us intend to say and do those things, but for reasons I don’t know we say
and do them nevertheless.
In short, I believe that the essence of what we profess in OB is not in
what we profess but in the integrity and credibility with which we profess
it. Furthermore, believing that the manner in which we define cheating is
an important expression of our professional integrity and credibility, I have
redefined cheating and express that redefinition in the form of a letter
which participants receive the first day of class. It is designed to fulfill a
small part of what I believe to be my moral responsibility as a professor to
encourage cheating, and it goes as follows:
You may take the examination alone, with another person, or with as
many other people as you would like. I frown on cheating. In fact, I go
blind with rage if I catch anyone cheating. I define cheating as the failure
to assist others on the examination if they request it*…. You may refer
to notes and reference materials during the exam. You may bring
friends, relatives, or associates to help you. You may also bring equipment such as typewriters, computers, musical instruments, sewing machines, cookstoves, cameras, or any other contrivance which will provide assistance to you in your work. …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades