How Winston Churchill Rewrote History - 786 Words

â€Å"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.† –Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill ended up doing just as he said he would. He wrote history. He modernized the British military, was a leading supporter for the rearmament of Britain, and put many social and domestic reforms in place. Winston Churchill’s immovable attitude against the Nazi’s lead to the eventual defeat of the Germans during WWII. He forged key alliances with the US and Russia in order to defeat the Nazis and helped to sculpt the post war world we know today including the development of the United Nations. Winston Churchill was born on November 30, 1874 in Ireland. His father was a renowned British statesman which helped to push him towards a career in the government. Churchill was an independent and rebellious child. After doing poorly in his first two schools, Churchill was sent to the Harrow Boarding School in April of 1888. Within weeks of his enrollment, he joined the Harrow Rifle Corps which pushed him towards a military career. After the Harrow Boarding School, C hurchill decided that he would join the Army. He saw brief but eventful action in the Battle of Omdurman in 1898. In 1899, Churchill left the army and became a war correspondent for The Morning Post. While reporting on the Boers War in South Africa, he was taken captive by the Boers. Upon escape, Churchill traveled almost 300 miles to Portuguese territory in Mozambique. He wrote various books on his experience in the army and in TheShow MoreRelatedCritics of Novel 1984 by George Orwell14914 Words   |  60 Pages1984 In George Orwells 1984, Winston Smith wrestles with oppression in Oceania, a place where the Party scrutinizes human actions with ever-watchful Big Brother. Defying a ban on individuality, Winston dares to express his thoughts in a diary and pursues a relationship with Julia. These criminal deeds bring Winston into the eye of the opposition, who then must reform the nonconformist. George Orwells 1984 introduced the watchwords for life without freedom: BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU. WrittenRead MoreStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 PagesCreating a Positive Work Environment 22 †¢ Improving Ethical Behavior 22 Coming Attractions: Developing an OB Model 23 An Overview 23 †¢ Inputs 24 †¢ Processes 25 †¢ Outcomes 25 Summary and Implications for Managers 30 S A L Self-Assessment Library How Much Do I Know About Organizational Behavior? 4 Myth or Science? â€Å"Most Acts of Workplace Bullying Are Men Attacking Women† 12 An Ethical Choice Can You Learn from Failure? 24 glOBalization! Does National Culture Affect Organizational Practices? 30 Point/Counterpoint

Summary Of Celia A Slave - 1416 Words

Celia, a Slave was a factual interpretation of one isolated incident that depicted common slave fear during the antebellum period of the United States. Melton A. McLaurin, the author, used this account of a young slave woman s struggle through the undeserved hardships of rape and injustice to explain to today s naive society a better depiction of what slavery could have been like. The story of Celia illustrates the root of racial problems Americans still face in their society. Although not nearly as extreme, they continue to live in a white-male dominated culture that looks down upon African-Americans, especially females. McLaurin looks at the views of the time, and speculates the probabilities of this pre - Civil War era, the values of which still pierce daily life in the United States. The American constitution recognized slavery as a local constitution within the legal rights of the individual states. But in the North slavery was not adaptable to the local economy, and to many, it contradicted the vision of the founding fathers for a nation in which all men are to be free. The South considered slavery as a necessary institution for the plantation economy. It was linked to the local culture and society. As the United states expanded, the North worried that the South would introduce slavery into the new territories. Slavery had become both a moral issue and a question of political power. (Kral p61) This account of enduring adversity begins with a man by the name ofShow MoreRelatedCristina Garcias Dreaming in Cuban Essay3280 Words   |  14 Pagesone direct family member of Celia del Pino. Celia is the matriarch of the del Pino family from whom many of the conflicts involved in the family originate. As a young woman, Celia meets and falls in love with a Spaniard named Gustavo. Unfortunately for her, Gustavo is married man who soon after a passionate love affair returns to Spain. The mother of Lourdes, Felicia and Javier, is then courted by her future husband Jorge del Pino. Once persuaded to marry Jorge, Celia moves in with Jorge’s motherRead MoreExposing Racism in William Shakespeare’s Othello Essay2036 Words   |  9 Pages The infectious discrimination of Elizabethan racists is derived from fear unnatural a racist’s hate plagues a vulnerable community of black slaves, with religion and war corrupting diverse cultures in the attempts to purify the exi stence of sin. This enlightening argument of what inspires William Shakespeare’s to compose the play Othello contaminates romantic relationships, Before the integration of black-skinned people into Elizabethan culture, Christian ideology coalesce Satan’s appearance withRead MoreAfrican American Women Slave Revolts2163 Words   |  9 PagesSoftly: African American Women, Slave Revolts, and Historical Constructions of Racialized Gender† is an attempt by Rebecca Hall, to uncover women’s participation in slave revolts and to address a concern of why enslaved women were silenced in revolt. She also focuses on why certain aspects of slave revolt are seen as exclusively male activities. To accomplish her task, she uses a number of book excerpts from prominent historians, as well as many sources from accounts of slave revolts in history. AlthoughRead MoreOrganisational Theory230255 Words   |  922 PagesManagement Studies, Keele University, UK An unusually rich and deep philosophical book on organization theory with several new thinkers and ideas. Pedagogically a well-structured book with many clear learning obj ectives, cases, examples and good summaries for every chapter. Professor Martin Lindell, Hanken Business School, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, Finland This book makes it easier to understand the current stand of organization theory. I strongly recommend it to anyone

The Argument About Ged Practice Test Essay Topics

The Argument About Ged Practice Test Essay Topics The Honest to Goodness Truth on Ged Practice Test Essay Topics If you are able to use the provided information in a sensible way, you are going to be in a position to create your efficient study program. You might not be able to pin point the specific topic that you will discuss, but frequent writing can enhance your abilities. Various folks will naturally develop various skills. Answering the practice questions and receiving feedback will be able to help you get a sense of the type of reading, thinking, and problem-solving skills you will need to pass the GED test. All three of the most significant HSE tests provide sample prompts and passages. To begin with, let's get a better idea about what's included in the GED testing practice. Your success on GED test day is dependent not simply on the number of hours that you put into preparing, but in addition on whether you prepared the proper way. Write neatly so the test graders can easily read what you've written. In some regions, you must take the full battery of tests in a couple of sittings. After the test day comes, you will be ready. The most important body of the essay needs to be broken up into three paragraphs. There are a lot of GED-specific study guides you can buy to further help you study and get ready for the essay section, together with the remainder of the test. Attempt to know the topic and what's expected in your answers. If you merely know the correct answers to the sample questions, you won't be ready for the actual thing. There are, in addition, some wonderful Internet resources which can help you get a jump on the GED. If your aim is to pass the GED, then you have to learn about test-taking strategies. There's another means to get read y for the GED that doesn't involve the Internet in any way and that's with a GED Prep Book. While it can sound overwhelming, you've got access to plenty of resources that could help make certain you're well prepared and your objective of attaining your GED is a successful one. GED isn't hard to pass if you only have the suitable wisdom and follow it. A GED is the your very first tool to a lot of entry level jobs that may result in some very exciting careers. The GED asks test-takers to write on a number of subject issue. The GED isn't the exact same as a high school diploma. When it's difficult to compose an essay in 45 minutes, begin by taking more time. Resume template monster Focus your capacity to write you attain your. To begin with, you must realize that however much unpredictable the topic might be, practice still makes perfect sense. Then lower your time until you may write faster. Details of Ged Practice Test Essay Topics Taking a couple of minutes at the start to structure your essay can help save you valuable writing time later. If you have issues with finding great GED essay ideas, ask your professor or a teacher who can assist you. At the same time that you should definitely construct some complete essays from start to complete, it's also wise to prepare, generally speaking, by becoming familiarized with each particular section of the essay and the total organizational approach. Writing an essay for the literary part of the GED (General Education Development) test ought to be easy, as it's the same as writing another sort of essay for your class. Getting stressed when writing might continue to keep your focus away from the task and affect the grade of your essay. Remember you ought to have some understanding of the topic you're writing about. You don't need to compose a creative essay, you simply have to make sure you write appropriate grammar. If you realize that you are stuck in regards to writing an essay, request somebody's assistance that will help you proceed through writing an essay. Practice exams By collecting several different practice exams, you are going to have a better mastery of the sum of difficulty the questions are going to be on the real CPC exam. Do not seem through the topics before you pick. You'll immediately know your score and can establish if you want more practice on that specific subject. Practice tests are useful since they show precisely where you should improve.

America s Scandalous Incarceration Rate - 921 Words

America’s scandalous incarceration rate In the U.S. there has been a rise in incarcerations, the numbers today are much higher than they were 30, 40 years ago despite the fact that crime is at historic lows. So what are we to make of the leap in time typically served for crimes in America’s society? Either the justice system was too lenient in the past, or the justice system is too strict now. Have we just now realized the real gravity of murder, or are we now overreacting? Those who have served a proportional sentence, and have proven themselves worthy, deserve to be restored to public life. Locking away large numbers of people for long periods of time has little effect on public safety. Given how high America’s incarceration rate is, it†¦show more content†¦The idea was to make prison a system for corrections, rather than detention alone. These ideas soon manifested in schools of philosophy and criminology were the notion was defended that punishment should be more lenient only at the cost of the g reater good and aimed to change the behavior itself. Eventually these ideas gave birth to a new form of incarcerations designed to deter both rise in crime and to reform, based on self-reflection over the prisoner’s choices. â€Å"The 2015 World Justice project Rule of Law index was published in June 2015, ranking 102 countries based on a host of indicators, including criminal justice. The criminal justice factor measures impartiality, due process and rights of the accused, and effectiveness of the countries’ criminal investigation, adjudication and correction systems. The United States ranked 23rd out of 102 countries, 16th among 24 regional peers, and 23 among 31 income peers.† Michelle Ye Hee Lee July 7, 2015. Why are the incarcerations in the United States so high one might ask? In the United States around 1970 through 1985 the crime rate spike, this was not anything new to the American people at the time, but what was new was how the United States chose to respond to the crime wave. The United States respond with a series of tough crime tactics because the American public was becoming worried by the spike in violent crimes.

Changing Culture at Pizza Hut Free Essays

Changing Culture at Pizza Hut and Yum! Brands, Inc. The concept of corporate culture has captured the imagination of executives for years. For executives struggling to manage organizational change, understanding their organization’s culture has become paramount before undertaking such a change. We will write a custom essay sample on Changing Culture at Pizza Hut or any similar topic only for you Order Now They realize that significant strategic and structural realignment cannot occur if it is not supported by the organization’s norms and values. Organization cultures are created by leaders and, therefore, one of the most important functions of a leader is the creation, management, and sometimes the destruction of a culture. An organization’s culture re? ects the values, beliefs and attitudes of its members. These values and beliefs foster norms that in? uence employees’ behaviors. Organizational cultures evolve imperceptibly over years. Unlike mission and vision statements, they are never written down, but are the soul of an organization. Cultures are collections of unspoken rules and traditions and operate 24 hours a day. They determine the quality of organizational life. Cultures determine much of what happens within an organization. While managers are aware of their organization’s culture(s), they are often unsure about ow to in? uence it. If cultures are powerful in? uencers of behaviors, they must be created. One way to analyze shared assumptions is by exploring top management’s answers to the following questions: 1. How do people in this organization accomplish their work? 2. Who succeeds in this organization? Who doesn’t? 3. How and when do people interact with one another? Who participates? 4. What kinds of work styles are valued in this organization? 5. What is expected of leaders in this organization? 6. What aspects of performance are discussed most in evaluations? The purpose of this article is to share with you how senior leaders at Pizza Hut in particular and at Yum! Brands, Inc. (Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC) in general answered these questions and were able to create a new culture after the restaurants were spun off from PepsiCo Inc. Culture change does not occur in a vacuum. It is an integral part of the company’s fabric. To change a company’s culture, rewards systems, leader behaviors, and organizational designs must be created Acknowledgments: This research was sponsored by a research grant from the OxyChem Corporation. The primary focus of this article is Pizza Hut and how Pizza Hut both generated and experienced the culture change at Yum! It is based, primarily, on the thoughts, re? ections and opinions of senior managers who experienced and helped communicate the changes discussed in this article. The authors would like to acknowledge the constructive comments made by Steve Arneson, Leon Avery, Chris Koski, Mike Rawlings and Don, and Leslie Ritter. 319 to support the change, as the experience of Pizza Hut demonstrates. THE SPIN-OFF AND PIZZA HUT Started in 1958 by the Carney brothers, Dan and Frank, Pizza Hut played a major role in turning pizza from an Italian specialty into a mass-market, mainstream food. Pizza Hut had developed a reputation for and commitment to product quality that was ‘‘built into the bones’’ of restaurant managers, and with it, great pride in the brand. By the mid 1990s, Pizza Hut had become a powerful brand, with some 8,000 U. S. -based restaurants, 140,000 employees and over $5 billion dollars in system-wide sales. One internal Pizza Hut market researcher estimated that over 90 percent of American pizza eaters had tried a Pizza Hut pizza. One of the key drivers of the success of Pizza Hut was PepsiCo. Along with KFC and Taco Bell, Pizza Hut was and had long been part of the PepsiCo Restaurant Division. PepsiCo had brought its national marketing muscle to the Pizza Hut brand, raising sales and increasing brand visibility. But it had also brought something that had a major impact on Pizza Hut: the PepsiCo management system. Even before Jack Welch made General Electric Co. ’s personnel management system the envy of American industry, PepsiCo had a reputation for producing great general managers. Its personnel planning system, shepherded by a set of organizational psychology Ph. D. consigliore in each of PepsiCo’s operating divisions, produced a stellar cast of professional managers. This system, layered on an existent Pizza Hut founding culture, was far from a natural ? t for the quick-service restaurant industry. PepsiCo was what Kerr and Slocum would call a market culture with a performancebased reward system. PepsiCo’s very fast moving, individually focused, consumerpackaged goods, entrepreneurial culture would prove not a great ? t for the relatively mature, slow-moving, team-oriented, quickservice restaurant business. 20 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS The integration of these two companies, PepsiCo and Pizza Hut, resembled a failed vinaigrette: a large amount of oil slowly churning in one direction, overlaid by a thin layer of vinegar, a whirlwind of speed moving in the opposite direction. The vinegar represents the high-potential PepsiCo general managers rapidly moving among the many divisions and corporate of? ces of PepsiCo. Smart, ambitious, competitive and results-driven, they were attracted by PepsiCo’s ability to move them up fast and give them a breadth of management experience in different PepsiCo businesses. A rising star might spend two years in ? eld marketing at Pepsi Cola North America, a year and a half in product marketing at Frito-Lay, an additional 18 months as a product brand manager there, two years at Pepsi Cola International, followed by a senior director position in marketing at Taco Bell, etc. The bottom layer, the oil, represented the bulk of Pizza Hut’s operations, staffed by hard working, dedicated, long-tenured restaurant-focused operators who loved the Pizza Hut brand and the restaurant business. They were less likely to be at the top of their class in college and less likely in fact to have graduated from college. Many had started as cooks, or dishwashers or delivery drivers. Slowly, as they had mastered the complexity of running retail operations and built their experience, they would move up the system. A select few even reached the top of operations, where they shared leadership positions with PepsiCo general managers, some of whom had non-operational functional backgrounds (in ? nance, say, or even marketing,) and who were doing their ‘‘ops rotation. ’ This two-tiered system of PepsiCo ‘‘short termers’’ and Pizza Hut restaurant-dedicated ‘‘lifers’’ had a number of built-in tensions and misalignments, including:  Home office glorification: Business was done in the restaurants, but ‘‘the power and the glory,’’ as well as the field programs, all originated in corporate headquar ters, whether Pizza Hut’s in Dallas, Texas, Yum! ’s in Louisville, Kentucky or PepsiCo’s in Purchase, New York. Top management’s line of sight was focused away from the restaurants. Short-term mentality: The ‘‘up or out’’ of the PepsiCo professional management system, a reward system linking short-term results to individual rewards, created pressure to make one’s mark and make it quickly. Anything that took too long to build or was built for long-term impact was a hard sell.  Lack of continuity: The need for quick success and the relatively rapid turnover in headquarters management made for a ‘‘program of the month’’ mentality.  Finance first headset: ‘‘Making plan’’ seemed sacrosanct in PepsiCo’s results-driven organization. This was often perceived by the ‘‘restaurateurs,’’ and even by some franchisees, to be at the cost of commitment to long-term restaurant essentials like product and asset quality.  Passive resistance in the field: The perception of short-term focus combined with a ‘‘program of the month’’ mentality engendered, at its worst, a system of passive resistance in field operations—compliance without commitment. Field operators, especially franchisees, often felt secure in the knowledge that if they just delayed program implementation long enough, Pizza Hut management would turn over and the new group would charge out with the ‘‘next great idea. ’ A performance-based, consumer packaged goods company like PepsiCo was not a natural ? t with the restaurant business. But whether it was bad business ? t, strategic or culture misalignment, or simply lack of tolerance for the restaurants business’ relatively low m argins and slow growth (despite its huge cash ? ow), PepsiCo gave up on Pizza Hut and its restaurants, spinning off its entire restaurant division in 1997, under the name Tricon Global Restaurants, Inc. , now Yum! Brands. ALIGNING BUSINESS/ CULTURE Yum! anagement understood that they had to create a radically different culture than the one at PepsiCo if the new company was to succeed. PepsiCo is primarily a consumer packaged goods company. Direct interaction with consumers takes place through advertising, or is mediated by supermarkets and other retail and wholesale establishments. Marketing was king, and at the time of the spin-off, one of the kings of marketing, Roger Enrico, was the CEO. Tricon Global Restaurants, Inc. was a restaurant company. Hundreds of thousands of low-pay, high turnover front-line mployees interacted with millions of customers a week in some 30,000 restaurants around the world. Quality control was not in the hands of process manufacturing gurus as at Pepsi C ola or Frito-Lay, but in those of part-time, often teenage employees making discrete decisions about quality with every product served. This posed an enormously different challenge for top management at Yum! PepsiCo was a holding company. If general managers made their ? nancial numbers and grew their people, then headquarters people left each general manager alone to run his or her business. Synergies across various lines of business were simply not a high priority on PepsiCo’s strategic agenda. In the restaurant division, this resulted in three strong, independent consumer brands. In effect, the three restaurant brands were really three separate companies, with independent cultures, information technology (IT) systems, operations, ? eld management practices, human resource systems, etc. Yum! , saddled with a large debt by PepsiCo and in the relatively lower margin restaurant business, was in no position to economically justify itself as a holding company overseeing three independent restaurant businesses. It had to look for operating synergies, shared resources, etc. It had to be much more of an operating company. A shift from three independent companies to one company with three independent restaurant brands was required for ? nancial survival. Top management needed to meld three independent company cultures into one shared culture and one set of restaurant-focused values, built on a set of shared functions (e. g. , IT, bene? ts and compensation, legal). Succeeding at Pizza Hut could no longer be about making it to Purchase, New 321 York to work for PepsiCo. It had to be about making the customer experience in Pizza Hut restaurants great. David Novak, newly named vice chairman at Yum! had already started creating a restaurant-focused culture during his stint as president of KFC. Novak was fond of saying that he hated the term ‘‘culture’’ because it reminded him of germs. But his savvy understanding of how to build a restaurantfocused business culture was one of the reasons why he had been selected to run Yum! With little time between his selection and spin-off date, the new restaurant-focused culture was going to have to be jump-started. Launch date: October 7, 1997. CREATING THE CULTURE OF YUM! BRANDS Changing and integrating the culture of three companies with very strong founders, founding traditions and underlying assumptions about what constitutes success would be an enormous challenge, even after the homogenizing effects of PepsiCo culture were factored in. The actions that Yum! took to push its culture toward a desired end-state alignment with its business strategy and business model included: 1. Starting with a set of shared values to de? ne a culture across the three brands; 2. Founding the new company in a way that that embodied its new culture; 3. Using titles to signal intentions and signify new cultural meanings; 4. Creating a coaching management system to maximize restaurant performance; 5. Developing a recognition culture to reinforce cultural behaviors; 6. Realigning reward systems to validate and ‘‘walk the talk’’ on the values; and 7. Measuring the effectiveness and commitment of senior managers to the values. Starting with Shared Values The political philosopher, Hannah Arendt, trying to distinguish what was unique and 322 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS uccessful about the American Revolution (vs. those of France, and Russia, for example), focused on the concept of founding— both as a source of authority and as a statement of the power and commitment that comes from being a founder. The founding that was America’s Revolution was encoded in two distinct documents: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution . The former served to articulate those values that were distinct to America and the latter to codify them into workable systems and processes of government. Whether the leaders of Yum! ad read Arendt is unknown, but they intuitively understood the elements that had made the American experiment unique—and they incorporated them into the values statement and the launch of the new company. Rather than start with yet another statement of corporate values, they declared their differences with the ‘‘mother country,’’ that is, PepsiCo, with a set of ‘‘Founding Truths. ’’ The nine distinct statements in this one shared document were Yum! ’s ‘‘Declaration of Independence. ’’ They announced what Yum! would stand for, while at the same time differentiating the new company from its progenitor— he PepsiCo Restaurant Division. For example, one statement reads, ‘‘The RGM (Restaurant Gene ral Manager) is our #1 Leader . . . not senior management. ’’ Another reads, ‘‘Great Operations and Marketing Innovation Drive Sales . . . no ? nger-pointing. ’’ These two statements suggest both the direction Yum! wanted to take and the behaviors it wanted to avoid. Taken together, the nine statements clearly demarcate both the essentials of a genuinely restaurant-focused company and the differences between what employees could expect from Yum! and what the restaurants and their operators had resented in PepsiCo. The statement of shared values, Yum! ’s ‘‘How We Work Together’’ principles, doesn’t differentiate Yum! from its competitors. Values statements rarely can serve this role, and Yum! ’s restaurant-focused, but otherwise standard values certainly can’t: customer focus, belief in people, recognition, coaching and support, accountability, excellence, positive energy, teamwork—who could be against these? Instead, as we’ll demonstrate, they served more to structure processes and systems and stand as a code for measurable behavior. In other words, they served the role of the U. S. Constitution. And, like the Constitution, while the details of the document weren’t easy to remember, their impact was ubiquitous. The Founding The launch of a large, new public, U. S. -based company, whether from spin-off, merger or acquisition, usually follows a rather standard process. You ring the opening bell of the New York Stock Exchange, throw a big launch event at corporate headquarters, presumably beamed live to division headquarters and by videotape to international locations, blare the news across the corporation’s internal media and push your best foot forward in the press. In this regard, the launch of Yum! followed the same format: Wall Street, a big event in Louisville, Kentucky, featuring the new Yum! Management team and the restaurant brand presidents, moderated by then ‘‘Good Morning, America’’ co-host Joan Lunden and beamed around the country. But if the launch was going to embody the culture, as enunciated in the ‘‘Founding Truths’’ and the ‘‘How We Work Together Principles,’’ with its principles of putting restaurants and their managers first, it was necessary to turn the usual launch format on its head. Yum! id this in three ways: by making local activities the center of the action instead of the headquarters event; by centering activities on restaurant managers, and by signing up those managers as ‘‘founders. ’’ The local events were focused primarily on enlisting local restaurant general managers in the new company. Activities centered on team-building exercises for the managers designed by Yum! ’s organizational and leadership development team. These were simple, but often powerful group activities. For example, the local event that one of the authors facilitated for some 200 participants in Miami, Florida, epresented the ? rst time that area Pizza Hut, KFC and Taco Bell managers had ever met together in one place. There were managers who ran restaurants of different brands, often adjacent to each other, who had never met! The simple act of sharing personal biographies and store histories created new connections. After two hours of team-building activities, the message that we were now one company, not three, and that we were part of a team together came across loud and clear. The national event reinforced the local event rather than the other way around. The invitation to and attendance primarily by restaurant managers told them they were important. This was reinforced by the national event which stressed the primary role of the RGM and introduced the ‘‘Founding Truths,’’ and it was graphically embodied in the new Yum! stock certi? cate, which featured one real manager from Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC on its front. The most powerful part of each local event was saved for the end. Each locality had been supplied with a large poster featuring the new companies ‘‘Founding Truths. ’’ The poster was put outside the event meeting room, along with a set of magic markers. The managers were invited, on their way out, to sign their names on the poster and to become a ‘‘founder,’’ but only if they agreed with the principles of the new company. They were told that no top managers would be there to watch, and that there would be no penalty for not signing. It was strictly voluntary. They were, in effect, invited to sign the company’s ‘‘Declaration of Independence,’’ and in doing so, make a public commitment to the culture and the company. Over 80 percent of the attending RGMs left their signatures. ‘‘Founder’s Day’’ as it is now called, has become a yearly event celebrating the culture of Yum! Titles Given the symbolic importance of titles, Yum! was smart enough to actively use title changes to signal culture changes. ‘‘Corporate Headquarters’’ was re-named 323 the ‘‘Restaurant Support Center,’’ signifying that the restaurants were the central focus of the company. Presidents of the KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut were, at least initially, re-named ‘‘chief concept officers,’’ signifying that there was now only one company with three concepts, not three companies. The entire above-restaurant management team also had their titles changed from ‘‘managers’’ to ‘‘coaches. ’ Area managers were now ‘‘area coaches,’’ operations directors were ‘‘market coaches’’ and division vice presidents became ‘‘head coaches. ’’ It was one thing to state that coaching was a company value—it wa s quite another to construct an entire management system based on coaching—to embed that value in the way the company worked. That was to be perhaps the biggest culture change of all. Coaching The idea that coaching could be something that all associates in a company could have to improve their performance, right down to the front lines, and that every manager had the capacity to coach may still appear radical, or at least improbable. Pizza Hut itself wasn’t even sure it could be done when it started the process. There were two incentives to create a coaching culture in operations: first, business growth had stalled and the company needed a jump-start and second, the PepsiCo management system was incongruent with the quick-service restaurant business. PepsiCo’s focus on individual, instead of team success, its short-term mentality and the intensely financial results driven culture had its strengths and its shortcomings. It was not a culture that could lead to sustained team performance in a restaurant. For example, under PepsiCo, management had been by exception. As Pizza Hut chief operating officer (COO) Aylwin Lewis put it before a national conference on coaching and mentoring, ‘‘If you’re a good performer, you get left alone; if you’re a poor performer, you get an action plan. ’’ In other words, getting the kind of management attention embodied in effective coaching and training to build 324 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS managerial competencies was seen as a sign of failure. The short-term focus of PepsiCo’s management system had meant that fixing things quickly was a strength. But short-term fixes became dysfunctional for building longterm capabilities through coaching. Finally, the focus on individual instead of team performance made it difficult to coach. Coaching ultimately has to be about the team and the person to be coached. It can’t be about the personal success story of the coach. Coaching supported the restaurantfocused culture in a number of ways. First, it required physical proximity. It’s best done face-to-face. Coaching can’t be done very effectively from another state. That meant above-restaurant management would have to start spending time in the restaurants. Second, it required interpersonal and operational, as well as ? nancial competence. To coach a restaurant manager, you had to know the business at least as well as they did and know how to share that knowledge, or you’d be wasting their time. Shifting the basis of control to knowledge from command of resources and rewards would force ‘‘general’’ managers to become ‘‘restaurant coaches. ’’ Third, it required partnership. The coach can’t be successful and have the player fail. Market coaches, area coaches and restaurant managers were networking, mirroring the teamwork required in the restaurants. COACHING MAY BE THE RIGHT WAY TO GO—BUT HOW DO YOU GET THERE? The first 90 days: Before anything else had been done, job titles were changed. All operations vice presidents, directors and area managers became ‘‘coaches. ’’ That was the ‘‘changeable moment’’ that signaled to employees that a new mode of operating was inevitable. There was ‘‘boot camp’’ for the entire operations team. The fastest way to ensure that all managers could master and understand the skills of the average employee was to bring them together, make them re-learn the basics of the business of making pizza and then test them o their competence was ‘‘certified. ’’ While this was going on, the organizational development team was developing job maps and outlining roles, responsibilities, outcomes, and behaviors for the role of coach. With title, certi? cation and job map, the coaching culture was launched. A nd barely stayed a? oat. The epiphany on what wasn’t working occurred to Aylwin Lewis during a roundtable with area coaches in Columbus, Ohio. One of the area coaches looked at him and said, ‘‘You’ve changed our titles and you’ve given us training and said, ‘Now, I want you to be in restaurants 80 percent of the time. Okay, now what do you want us to do there? What do we do with all that time? ’’ Without any existing precedents for building a new management system based on coaching, it wasn’t immediately apparent that a model of coaching was needed. Coaching was a skill that had to be taught. People needed a model for how to coach. In PepsiCo, coaching wasn’t rewarded and therefore not practiced. A coaching culture model needed to be developed at Yum! It had to be practical, simple and action-oriented—it had to ? t the fast paced, high-turnover environment of the restaurant business. A teachable threestep process, with an easy to learn acronym, EAR, was developed: taught all market coaches, while the market coaches bypassed all area coaches and personally taught all restaurant managers. This simple method had huge implications for fostering a new culture at Yum!. First, it meant that all the coaches had to learn the coaching model well enough to teach it. Second, they had to demonstrate their commitment to it in order to teach it well, and were held accountable for achieving results. It would not have had the same impact if the training department employees had led the classes. Third, it put the one level down coaches (the direct supervisors of the students) on notice for accountability to their immediate subordinates. Fourth, operators were able to bring real-life examples into the role-plays, increasing the relevance, impact, usefulness and credibility of the coaching material. In addition to training, coaching logs were created in each restaurant to document each coaching session, its lessons and commitments. Audiotapes of coaching sessions were circulated to restaurant managers to provide real-life demonstrations. Creating a coaching culture had begun. Recognition Top managers learned from Southwest Airlines Co. the power of recognition to motivate employees, and to elicit positive discretionary behavior among employees. Southwest Airlines separates reward from recognition, celebrating behaviors that reinforce the culture, creating an elaborate, yet spontaneous process of positive behavioral feedback. Recognition is done by everyone, not just senior managers. This means that all levels of supervisors can recognize behavior, empowering those supervisors, but also ensuring that the recognition is timely, specific and meaningful to the person who receives it. There were three keys to building a successful recognition program at Pizza Hut: 1. Starting at the top; 2. Ensuring it was continuous and ongoing, and got built into communications; and 3. Reinforcing it publicly. 325 Exploring Observe/ask/listen Analyzing Facts? Isolated or pattern? Root cause? Responding Teach new skills and knowledge Provide feedback Offer support and gain commitment Operational leaders (not training personnel) would be responsible for teaching all coaching classes for those two levels down from them. For example, COO Aylwin Lewis bypassed head coaches and personally Starting at the top: David Novak, now chairman of Yum! , formerly president of Pizza Hut (and of KFC) single-handedly brought recognition to Pizza Hut. He said that he had learned the power of recognition during his job as chief operating of? cer at one of the PepsiCo divisions. His deep-seated belief in the power of recognition and his commitment to it made all the difference. Novak’s ? rst foray into recognition as president of a division occurred at KFC, where he created the ‘‘? oppy chicken’’ award. The award itself embodied the distinction between recognition and reward. It was one of those rubbery ? oppy chickens used for pranks or jokes that would be as likely to show up on Halloween as at any other time. In other words, it wasn’t valuable in and of itself—it wasn’t a watch, or a ring, fancy clock, tie tack, brooch, earrings, etc. Three things made it valuable as recognition. First, it was numbered. So it wasn’t just a ? oppy chicken. It was the #45 ? oppy chicken. Second, it was signed and had a personal message written on it. And third, a picture of the recipient and Novak was taken, framed and sent to the recipient. A $100 gift certi? ate was also given, but Novak was clear to point out that this was simply an add-on: ‘‘We know you can’t eat the chicken. ’’ At Pizza Hut, Novak started the ‘‘Big Cheese’’ award—a rubber cheese hat (similar to those worn by fans of the Green Bay Packers football team. ) This was also numbered, and personally inscribed. The recipient had to wear it while being photographed with the president. When Novak became vice chairman of Yum! at the spin-off, his successor as president of Pizza Hut, Mike Rawlings, continued the tradition. During his ? ve-year tenure, Rawlings handed out over 500 ‘‘Big Cheese’’ awards. The frequent tears, positive emotions and heartfelt gratefulness of the recipients were reinforcing for culture and for the giver. One author personally experienced the impact of getting the award in front of 600 employees at an ‘‘All-Team’’ meeting. The power of the award is in the public recognition. The author’s $100 gift certi? cate remains unspent. 326 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS To create a recognition culture, rather than simply a recognition award, things couldn’t stop and start with Novak. He encouraged his immediate reports to create their own recognition awards, and they soon did. What followed was a slow process of osmosis, reinforced by the positive impact of recognition. For example, the chief operating of? cer created a recognition award and gave it out at all operations meetings. The positive feedback and public recognition that accompanied it built pride and goodwill amongst recipients and reinforced their positive behavior. The obvious and widespread positive feedback gave a reason for head coaches to create their own recognition awards for their meetings, and so on down the line right into the restaurants. Like osmosis, the spread of recognition was uneven and sometimes slow. But within three years, recognition awards were regularly appearing in restaurants, as managers used recognition to motivate front-line employees. And because the spread was spontaneous—never dictated by ‘‘corporate’’—and completely voluntary, there was a sense of ownership for the behavior. Recognition built deep roots. Those roots had the time to grow because once the recognition tradition started, the continuous, ongoing commitment of senior leaders kept it alive, front and center. Every public meeting included recognition awards on the agenda. Over time, the continuity of recognition starting generating a sense of anticipation and ‘‘pull’’ for awards. Within three years, recognition had become so routine and omnipresent that it lost any tinge of self-awareness and simply became ‘‘the way we do things around here. ’’ Rewards The balanced scorecard was the primary mechanism for allocating rewards and handing out bonuses for restaurant managers. Two changes to the reward system helped align it with the ‘‘Founding Truths’’ and ‘‘How We Work Together Principles’’ on which the new culture was based. First, people measurements were added to ? nancial measurements and customer measurements, reinforcing the ‘‘putting people ? rst’’ credo. It might have taken three years before all restaurant managers had been trained as coaches, but the scorecard was ? exible enough to allow for measuring the results of good coaching—such as reduced turnover—within a year. Second, in a move unprecedented in the industry, restaurant managers were given stock options as an outright block grant, and stock options were added to the list of performance incentives. Legally limited initially in the number of stock options it could award, Yum! chose to award its restaurant managers these options before their bosses, the area coaches, were able to get theirs. This powerfully reinforced the founding truth that the ‘‘RGM was #1,’’ and should act like an owner of the business. The symbolic value and the boost to management credibility was at least as important as the value of the options themselves. ?nancial of? cer of Yum! was let go, and his lack of cultural ? was cited as a reason, this sent a powerful signal that the cultural values of the company were important. RESULTS The nature of Pizza Hut’s business makes it very difficult to make causal links between the change in culture and changes in its business. For one thing, the main determinant of Pizza Hut sales is new product launches, somewhat orthogonal to culture as a sales determinant. For another, as a result of the spin-off, Yum! had been burdened with a hug e debt and was in the process of selling off its company-owned restaurants. This undoubtedly mpacted morale, potentially slowing the impact of culture change, and it may have skewed the same-store sales averages of the remaining restaurants, obfuscating the impact of culture. These points notwithstanding, during the ? rst four years of its culture change, Pizza Hut experienced record highs in same-store sales and a record low in restaurant manager turnover. In the ? ve years, from mid-1997 to mid-2002—when Pizza Hut was led by president Mike Rawlings, a time at the heart of the change in culture—same-store sales growth rose 19 percent, overall operating pro? doubled and margins improved to record highs. While these results may not have been caused directly by the change in culture, they were certainly consonant with it. ‘‘Founder’s Survey’’ results show strong belief in company leadership, commitment to and belief in the brand, and stro ng execution of the values at all levels. At the least, the changes in culture provided a strong foundation for and enablement of high performance. The management practices at PepsiCo and Yum! had a signi? cant impact on the cultures created in each organization. In a hologram, any fragment encapsulates the essence of the whole. Interpretations of a single management practice need to be consistent with the interpretation of other 327 Measurement ‘‘What gets measured, gets done,’’ is one of the oldest maxims of business. But when you’re trying to change a culture and using values to do it, what do you measure about the culture? Yum! answered this question in two ways. First, it created the ‘‘Founder’s Survey,’’ an annual company-wide survey that measured the company on its adherence to the ‘‘How We Work Together Principles. ’ All employees, except restaurant managers, were invited to participate, with participation rates in the mid-80 percentages. Results could be broken down by function and by levels, providing a picture on how different parts of the company perceived the company’s commitment to the culture. Managers were then required to come up with action plans for those areas where results were less than satisfactory. Second, Yum! created values-focused, 360-degree performance reviews, which were eventually pushed to the restaurant manager level. Individuals were held accountable for how they lived the values. When the chief management practices. Top managers at Yum! had the capacity to envision and enact a culture that inspired intense loyalty, strong commitment, increased productivity, and even greater pro? tability. To achieve consistency at Yum! and differentiate Yum! from PepsiCo, Yum! ’s top managers developed practices that were consistent with its culture. Cultural anthropologists for decades have studied the behaviors of members of numerous tribes. While each tribe might worship different ‘‘gods,’’ the behaviors of tribe members can be described using four concepts, all starting with the letter ‘‘T’’: Totems are things that are worshipped or prized; taboos are practices used to control or punish deviant behaviors or those not sanctioned by the tribe; traditions are practices that have been passed down through generations to preserve the status quo, and transitions (or rites of passages) are practices that serve to indoctrinate new members into the culture of the tribe. We summarize the differences in these four T’s between PepsiCo and Yum! n Table 1. Corporations have spent considerable amounts of money in response to consultants’ seductive promises of easy cultural change. Some managers have sought to replicate the strong cultures of successful companies, while others have tried to engineer commitment to a culture, in the hopes of increasing loyalty, productivit y, and/or pro? tability. Unfortunately, culture is rooted in the countless details of an organization’s life. How decisions are made, how careers are TABLE 1 Yum! Brands YUM! VERSUS PEPSICO: COMPARISON OF CULTURAL ARCHETYPESa TOTEMS Focus of attention: TABOOS Results without values ‘‘Quick hits’’ TRADITIONS Recognition TRANSITIONS Pizza ‘‘certification’’ and other ‘‘boot camps’’ for making products Becoming a ‘‘founder’’ Restaurants Team players Operations/marketing partnership Focus on people Effective operations Division interdependence Retail mentality Financial results Values without results Individual stars Lack of upward mobility Marketing is king Long-term projects without short-term results Not making a plan Coaching Restaurant General Manager is #1 Values driven Specialization PepsiCo People career Quarterly financial planning results review Move up or out Cross-functional rotations to build general managers Strong brand mentality Making a plan Division independence Wholesale/distribution mentality a This table is not meant to be a de? nitive anthropological statement. Rather, it represents perceptions of the differences between Yum! and PepsiCo corporate cultures. Note as well, that Yum! ‘‘traditions’’ tend to be founding behaviors and values created at its spin-off and continuously reinforced in systems, processes and leadership communications over its existence. 28 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS managed, how rewards are allocated—each small incident serves to convey some aspect of the organization’s culture. The founders of Yum! did not want to create a culture that perpetuated their own values and sense of immortality and stayed away from quick ? xes. What is the soul of Yum!? First, forget the numbers. Internal competition end s up making people less committed, creative, and caring. In the restaurant business, the lack of these three C’s leads to poor customer service, which ultimately affects store pro? tability. Second, people need appreciation. Big cheeses and other tokens of appreciation for talented high performers are an integral part of maintaining a strong culture. 329 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY For selected works on corporate culture and its impact on organizational performance, see Harrison Trice and Janice Beyer, The Cultures of Work Organizations (Prentice-Hall, 1993); Joanne Martin, Cultures in Organizations (Oxford University Press, 1992); Edgar Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed. (Jossey-Bass, 1992); Jackie Freiberg and Kevin Freiberg, NUTS! Southwest Airlines’ Crazy Recipe for Business and Personal Success (New York: Bard, 1966); James Higgins and Craig McAllaster, ‘‘Want Innovation? Then Use Cultural Artifacts that Support It,’’ Organizational Dynamics, 2002, 31, 74–84; Jeff Kerr and John Slocum, ‘‘Managing Corporate Cultures through Reward Systems,’’ Academy of Management Executive, 1987, 1, 99–108; and Jennifer Chatman and Karen Jehn, ‘‘Assessing the Relationship Between Industry Characteristics and Organizational Culture: How Different Can They Be? ’ Academy of Management Journal, 1994, 37, 522–553. Barry Mike is vice-president, internal communications, for the investment management ? rm T. Rowe Price. He previously spent seven years as director, internal communications at Pizza Hut. During his tenure there, he helped communicate his way through three presidents, one spin-off, one major restructuring, a downsizing, and a major culture shift. He has also worked closely during his career with the chairmen of Digital Equipment Corporation and Bell Atlantic. Mike’s educational background includes two master’s degrees as well as completion of his course work for a Ph. D. in Sociology from the University of Pennsylvania. In May 2001, he received his M. B. A. with honors from the Executive M. B. A. program at the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University (SMU). John W. Slocum Jr. holds the O. Paul Corley professorship in management at the Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University. He serves as the co-director for SMU’s Corporate Director’s Institute and is chairperson for the management and organizations department at the Cox School. He is the author of more than 24 books, over 130 articles, and has worked as a consultant in the human resources area for many Fortune 500 companies, including Lockheed Martin, IBM, and Aramark, among others. Currently, he is co-editor of the Journal of World Business, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies and associate editor of Organizational Dynamics. 330 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS How to cite Changing Culture at Pizza Hut, Papers

Security and Risk Management for Cryptography - myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theSecurity and Risk Management for Cryptography. Answer: Physical security is an overlooked element that is important to an organization. Physical security prevents intruders from physically accessing sensitive sites (Draper, 2013). Other information security elements like cryptography and firewall are essential but physical security should be coordinated with the plan. Therefore, high availability of physical security infrastructure system must function properly in an area for the safety of the equipment in that area. Physical security design is a critical process that offers protection to the facility of the company. The security plan should address all the programs and services that are within the framework of the company security sector. When designing a physical security plan, the first requirement is to obtain a physical security assessment report from the security experts (Infrastructure, n.d.). The PSAR will contain all the provisions that are necessary such as the secure location and the methods of control within the coverage area. The facilities that should be included are signage, security alarms, security guards, and physical barriers. Another aspect to consider is the project team members. The project design team it will oversee everything that will monitor the progress of the project at the same facilitating the implementation the plan. (Infrastructure. n.d.). Whereas the project team will consist of outsourced and the local security personnel. The entire composition of the security experts will demarcate the zones, identity key ingress and egress paths, and circulation routes within the premises. In the internal environment, the circulation routes are designed in a manner that enables the free flow of facilities within the operation lines (The Security Assessment: What, Why, and When, n.d.). The routes should conform to the security guidelines to ensure safety and security needs are upheld. The available security zones include but not limited to public zone, operation zones, reception zones, security zones, and high-security zones (Kolltveit Hvasshovd, 2008). Public zones offer access to areas that are not too sensitive but within the building perimeter and elevator lobby. In the reception area, scrutiny is done to everyone for identification after that authenticating an individual to access the premise. This is the point where a person can be either allowed or denied access based on the security threat he poses to the company facilities. It limits the public from getting contact with company representatives. The operations zone will enable the employees and authorized contractors to access the company premise by using access card and company identification cards. Nobody can access the operation zone without these document unless escorted by authorized staff. Also, the security zone will allow authorized visitors to the organization premise only when escorted by relevant company representatives. Besides, people within the organization are supposed to be within the restricted perimeter. Especially where the area has a limited information which is not supposed to be accessed by the public. The high-security zone is where only authorized people are allowed to access. In this case, the visitors screened and thoroughly checked to avoid access to confidential information of the company (Why Training and Awareness Are Important, 2010). For example, the data storage warehouse may contain company records and crucial information which is sensitive. Since the premises will consist of a two-storey office building and a warehouse building, as a fundamental security requirement the two facilities should be separated. In other words, each department should operate independently on its floor suites. Thus, the action will limit congestion and access to sensitive offices. Access control unit should be consistent in all aspects as to the operating procedure and the systems used within the operation area (Stallings,2014). In this case, the electronic security system will be deployed. This system should be integrated to meet the standards of security. To design this electronic security system the company should adhere to the following: Coordinating the databases from various departments to a central database for easy management and retrieval is crucial The company should avoid stand-alone system within the company since the company comprises of several departments. This is meant to streamline the Information technology infrastructure for easy management. The security systems should be operational on a full-time basis especially in those areas where high chances of risk as identified by the physical security assessment report. The hardware security components must be durable and standardized to meet the security standards. Besides, identify a specific area of duress alarms especially the locations where employees work alone. This area might be isolated or prone to high risk. The surveillance and alarm system cumulatively is USD 740, 800. On the other hand, the installation, and monitoring system and cabling will require USD 445000. In total, the two components amount to USD 1185800. The cost above the budget equals USD 385 800. Out this there which was necessary but in use, they include two servers at USD 30000 each, The POE switch one is not needed which costs USD 2000. Besides, the company will use Cat 5e cables which costs USD 50000 each instead of fiber optic cables which cost USD 150000. Therefore, the company will save USD 212000 after considering the cost cut. The extra cost that will be incurred will be USD (973800-800000) which equals to USD 173800. This is the amount to use from the buffer. The security zones will be divided into five distinct units. First, the at least two guards will work with the supervisor at the main entrance. The second zone that is the production zone should also contain at least guard. The guard should be based at the entry point and the exit point of the production unit (Pattinson,n.d.). The third zone will require a security guard at the entry and exit point in the finished goods zone. Most importantly, perimeter wall patrolling unit should be deployed. This zone should contain at least three soldiers. Lastly, the factory floor patrolling will require at least one guard per production building. In my opinion, the company should use outsourced guards. Although outsourcing is becoming prevalent, its benefits are many. It has been recognized as the appropriate approach for streamlining the operation of the company. There are numerous benefits that accrue from it among them being; acquisition of outsourced guards over proprietary are the wages that are to be paid. A lot of money will be saved if we outsourced guard. Equally the unions are vital such that members of the union have a coordinated agenda. In this case, Outsourcing guards from Thailand will enable the company to save overhead costs which could otherwise be incurred. Also, unions have a collective bargaining power hence the negotiation for their compensation is cheaper as compared to proprietary guards. Besides that, it is better to acquire the services of guards paid on hourly basis, unlike the proprietary guards who are paid cumulatively at the end of the month. In other words, proprietary guards being paid at the end of the month their salary is fixed whereas the outsourced guards have to attain the required working hours for them to be paid. Additionally, outsources guards are more motivated and exhibit a lot of professionalism. As such, they help the company to cut down administrative cost, training cost, recruitment cost, and other overhead costs. Therefore, this security conditions culminates a conducive environment to boost efficiency and productivity. On the proprietary guard, the compliance requirements are stringent unlike the requirements of outsourcing the guards from Thailand. However, in proprietary, the guards are reliable for any eventuality that may come as a result of their actions. References Draper,R. (2013). Standards, Regulations, and GuidelinesEffective Physical Security, 283-291. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-415892-4.00016-x Infrastructure. (n.d.).High Availability and Disaster Recovery, 233-286. doi:10.1007/3-540-34582-5_9 Kolltveit,H., Hvasshovd,S. (2008). Efficient High Availability Commit Processing.2008 Third International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security. doi:10.1109/ares.2008.78 Officers: In-house or Outsource? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/78403-officers-in-house-or-outsource-1 Pattinson,M.R. (n.d.). A Method of Assessing Information System Security Controls.Information Security and Ethics. doi:10.4018/9781599049373.ch137 The Security Assessment: What, Why, and When. (n.d.).Strategies for Protecting National Critical Infrastructure Assets, 47-54. doi:10.1002/9780470228371.ch3 Stallings,W. (2014). Physical Security Essentials.Cyber Security and IT Infrastructure Protection, 109-134. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-416681-3.00004-5 What Is High Availability? (2014).High Availability IT Services, 53-102. doi:10.1201/b17958-6 Why Training and Awareness Are Important. (2010).Managing an Information Security and Privacy Awareness and Training Program, Second Edition, 7-18. doi:10.1201/9781439815465-3