Thursday, October 8, 2015

Leadership & Change

Chapter 12 (Leadership and Change) reminded me of a movement a few years ago at UNO for faculty. Each year, we have to review our activities (teaching, research, and service) in order to qualify for merit increases. We receive two kinds of pay increases at UNO—negotiated raise and merit. Because we’re unionized, faculty receive a negotiated raise that usually anywhere from 1-3%. We also receive merit increases based on performance. In the English department, we share merit increases evenly, but I understand that not all departments/units do that. It is miniscule. Last year, I think I receive $68 in merit money. Both the negotiated raise and the merit increase are added to our base salary. Anyway, the merit review involves making a list, essentially, of what we have accomplished for the past year. We include items such as teaching evaluations, articles, and service accomplishments. A few years ago, UNO switched from the paper system of reporting merit to a digitally based system called Digital Measures. Most of the faculty hated this new system, which is likely due to the fact that it was new and different and one had to take the time to learn it. I think it works well as a reporting device because when the University needs to know certain information, such as how many articles faculty published last year, it can just run a report. This makes administrative work a lot easier. To connect it to the chapter, I thought about how the university managed this change. I don’t think they handled it poorly, but it was distinctly a top-down communication method. For about two years, we did have a system that Information Services created called myMapp. People really hated that system. But we only had it for a couple of years, I’m guess, because it was to costly to maintain ourselves. Digital Measures is a system we bought from a company (I don’t know which one.) Anyway, I think Digital Measures is an effective reporting system and not an example of Big Brother (which some faculty think).


When I read Chapter 13, I relieved that we finally have a chapter that focuses on ethics. Cornelissen’s treatment of this chapter still seems somewhat whitewashed, but as I said before, that is likely due to the genre of the textbook. When he mentioned “corporate citizenship,” I immediately thought of Citizen United, which I’ll state from the beginning that I believe should be overturned. Given that Cornelissen is European, I’m not sure he connected the two such as I am doing. But I find it difficult to view corporate citizenship as a portfolio of activities when the United States has corporations buying elections—not to bring up a political discussion. He at least was being a little more critical of corporations than in previous chapters. I’m especially dismayed with Kraft and what I see as unbridled greed. The only reason Kraft wanted Cadbury is because it was more successful, but as Cornelissen says, it also burdened Cadbury with tremendous debt. How much money does one corporation need? And to outright lie that they would take care of the employees. This is not only making me want to rethink buying Kraft products but also making me want to understand/learn more about business and how it operates. 

2 comments:

  1. I am in agreement about the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. It is problematic in so many ways for our democracy and our economy. I also agree with your point about the formal constraints of the textbook as a genre, but, I wonder, can an author somehow confront this in his/her introduction or some other ancillary portion of a textbook to acknowledge this?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm glad you mentioned Cornelissen's European origin. I'll take this opportunity to say it's one thing I really like about this book. It gives a distinctly non-American, specifically European, perspective on business that I find very interesting. Although I'm dismayed the author so often discusses corporate behavior in a matter-of-factly (if not outright positive) manner, I love reading about these companies I know of obliquely, if at all. I think an American-centric treatment, complete with Citizens United, Kochs, and even Trumps, would generate different discussions, though maybe of a more dispiriting nature.

    ReplyDelete