Actual Revolution…Via Facebook

In deciding whether or not social media is “revolutionary” in today’s world many focus on the great things these networking sites are able to do for business.  Sites such as Twitter and Facebook are able to market products, connect members of a business society to share processes and even keep the public aware of certain company strategies or upcoming events.  However, these sites, specifically Facebook, have also been used to create awareness and vent anger stemming from social issues and turmoil as well.  These networking sites are revolutionary for business, but for actual revolution as well.  The article from the NY Times, Facebook, Revolution Style points out one instance of this currently occurring in the Middle East.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Learning from the Past- Structural Changes over Time

The final chapter of Organizations and Organizing, Changing Contours of Organizations and Organization Theory draws in many of the concepts that have been used throughout the rest of the book.  Although it poses challenges to some of the theories set forth in earlier chapter, one major agreement can be found between the chapter and previous concepts.  One aspect of Chapter 14 emphasizes the ways in which organizations have changed their structures over time.  These developments occur due to mobilization on an international level.  On page 382 it is stated that, “over time the boundaries delimiting organizational form shift as a consequence of both segregating and blending processes, as new forms arise, undergo random drift, recombination, and deinstitutionalization.” The chapter addresses the idea that organizations do not begin each day with a “blank slate” but rather that they are able to inherit many ideas from predecessors.

Continue reading

Go Green or Get Out?

Bookmark and Share

In writing a paper for another class, I have begun to research certain industries and their effect on the environment, specifically as it relates to global warming.  Organizations today are constantly facing the pressure to “go green.”  Southwest is leading the airline industry in making the first green plane with recyclable carpet and lightweight products to reduce labor costs and waste. Proctor and Gamble have put an emphasis on green products such as laundry detergent that works at low temperatures.  Why not go green?

Continue reading

Blame Someone Else? Citigroup’s “Effective” Risk Management

Bookmark and Share


As I wrote about last week, the problem of the recession was partly caused by the failure of large firms to manage risk effectively.  In taking this research further, I hoped to find specific examples of certain firm’s crisis management plans and how these corporations reacted to economic problems.  After scouring library resources and SEC filings, I found that the best way to get this information was directly from the websites of these companies and from government websites such as the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

Continue reading

Who is to Blame? Crisis Management and the Financial Crisis

Bookmark and Share

What exactly went wrong to cause the economic downfall?  In exploring this question I looked at several different blogs and many of them pointed to the same factors.  Crisis management of large institutions, that are largely affected by politics, is one of the major issues when discussing the financial downturn in the United States.  The first article I looked at was  “Break Up the Banks” found on baseline scenario.  Kling states first that that “There is a free-market case for breaking up large financial institutions: that our big banks are the product, not of economics, but of politics.” These large institutions are often influenced by governmental policies and therefore do not initiate a free market.  His argument is to make banks smaller so that they are less influence by government policies and therefore are less likely to affect the overall economy.  But what are the chances of this type of regulation actually happening?  In the article it is stated that, “My skepticism of Kling’s argument is that, like some principled right-wing arguments that acknowledge climate change, it argues for an ideal solution that lacks any chance of happening, while favoring the status quo over a second-best solution.”  Although the idea of “breaking up the banks” may be good in theory, it does not seem feasible in American society.

Continue reading

Enron Didn’t Go Down Alone: Andersen Can’t Recover

In thinking about the aftermath of the Enron scandal I thought about our class discussion about what Arthur Andersen could have done to protect their interests after being involved with Enron. The cover up the Arthur Andersen continued further impacted the downfall of their company.  Arthur Andersen was found guilty in 2002 of obstruction of justice for shredding Enron documents as well as improper auditing practices.  An article from TIME magazine states that,The subpoenas were aimed at learning “what the officers knew and what they did about it.”  Andersen did nothing but get more involved with Enron.  Furthermore even if the company were able to continue practicing, their reputation is tarnished. Mark Cheffers, CEO of accounting Malpractice.com, says, “Even if they’re innocent, it looks like a massive cover-up.”  A cartoon

Continue reading

Power at the Top: How the Smartest Guys Took Control

In looking at the perspectives from Organizations and Organizing, I want to look more closely at Enron as a rational system.  Scott and Davis state that these are  “Structural arrangements within organizations are conceived as tools deliberately designed to achieve the efficient realization of ends or, from Weber’s perspective, the disciplined performance of participants” (pg. 56).  Goal specificity plays a large part in these types of organization just as it did at Enron.  The executives had a clear set of goals based almost completely on profit maximizing within the short term.  This company was striving to be at the top and stopped at nothing to increase the wealth of shareholders.  What Enron failed to do was react to the rest of the environment, all stakeholders involved.   This may have been accounted for if Enron had moved more toward an open or natural system perspective.  Company culture of Enron did not allow people to challenge the actions of the executives in order to innovate.  This was not done with Enron as it is stated about Enron,  “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”

Continue reading