B&M Case Study 2011

[dogmatichurricane]

hey

i was going through the leadership styles of neil and laura, and ive gotten a little ocnfused about something, maybe others have also picked up on

imo Neil has an autocratic leadership style (eventhough he's not the main leader of the charity but he is adirector) where he does worry about what his subordinates are doing, as he showed when he said he was getting irrated by Laura's laissez-faire leadership style. he expects the therapists and andrew to listen to him and to anticipate what is expected of them (power culture) and he expects them to act within their job descriptions (role culture). but he isnt mentoring, or monitoring either just like laura and therefore also has somewhat of a laissez-faire leadership style. The thing i dont understand is that he's complaining about laura's style when he's not doing any better at keeping the therapists and andrew in line.

this case study is becoming more and more like a tv series where everyones got problems with eachother

anyways, lemme know what you guys think of the leadership styles of laura and neil and this issue

(laura is obviously laissez-faire )

I would personally put Neil down as autocratic simply because none of the other leadership styles even mildly describe him. Ever since he found out about Andrew's issues, he also seems to intervene more. Obviously, he is specifically director - finance and strategy so Andrew does not really fall under his chain of command.

[Lucia Tranova]

I'd like to respond to the post mentioned above that Neil does not do anything to increase donations.

I think that Neil is trying to increase the cash receipts of RO in Option 1 and Option 3. If you understand what I mean. In option 1, the cash receipts would be increased, in case the increase was not meant to cover public transport expenses for students and for Option 3, it is quite obvious how would cash receipts increase.

I wanted to ask if anyone has done the SOFA (statement of financial activities) for RO??

Edited May 18, 2011 by Lucia Tranova

[natalie van nunen]

I'd like to respond to the post mentioned above that Neil does not do anything to increase donations.

I think that Neil is trying to increase the cash receipts of RO in Option 1 and Option 3. If you understand what I mean. In option 1, the cash receipts would be increased, in case the increase was not meant to cover public transport expenses for students and for Option 3, it is quite obvious how would cash receipts increase.

I wanted to ask if anyone has done the SOFA (statement of financial activities) for RO??

the reason for the three options is to raise revenue which is to increase cash reciepts. All three options are different ways of doing so; option 1 will increase money going to RO as transport costs will not cost more than $5 for the therapists (on average), option2 will create brand loyalty and awareness increasing the donations and ofcourse income by selling the promotional goods (given that RO can produce them cheaply so that they FOR SURE break even and dont make lossess). Option three is just an injection of money from Npharma through the sponsorship. so all provide cash receipts, thats not the issue with neils prp. The PRP has nothing to do with the options as it was impletmemnted from the start. As financial director though, neil can do little to increase cash receipts. the worst he can do is manage the finances of RO badly and cause losses which will make no difference to Ro's donations as this is a charity. Lossess dont do anything to customer perception. if anything they provide sympathy to the 'customers' or donators (but making losses should never be done for this reason obviously haha). anyways, neil cant affect the cash reciepts, if he handles finance well keeping costs as a minimum, and everything organised the most he can do is allow for reach out to keep moer of its income making what would be called retained profit. but its now called a surplus because RO is a charity. the PRP is therefore kind of useless for Neil's job and has nothing to do with the three options or his operations in the business. i feel like im just repeating myself.. mm

sofa: ($000)

SR(cash receipts) 41

-COGS 1.4

gross surplus 39.6

-expenses 22.68

net surplus 16.92

this is where the p&l account stops (im really not sure how to structure a sofa but this isnt even in the syllabus and they wouldnt ask us this, i can guarantee you that), the most they could ask you that relates to this is

what are the COGS and Expenses for RO

What are the fixed costs or variable costs

" " " direct and indirect costs

variable:

neils salary

production pecs cards

(internet)

(phone bills)

(license)

(maintenance computer)

fixed:

laura's salary

andrews salary

indirect costs

(maintenance of office)

start up costs of office

(rent)

(electricity-->absorption costing)

anyways lemme know if anyone else has done the SOFA, or if anyone disagrees with me about the costs because they are debatable

[MaNa]

Evaluate the cash flow situation of Reach Out.

How can this be done

HELP needed PLEASE

[achipalk]

Hi all,

I've got a general question about the exam - on Paper 1, will we have a copy of the Case Study to reference while taking the paper?

Thanks!

[Lucia Tranova]

sofa: ($000)

SR(cash receipts) 41

-COGS 1.4

gross surplus 39.6

-expenses 22.68

net surplus 16.92

this is where the p&l account stops (im really not sure how to structure a sofa but this isnt even in the syllabus and they wouldnt ask us this, i can guarantee you that), the most they could ask you that relates to this is

what are the COGS and Expenses for RO

Thank you, I got it now

Can I ask you where did you get your COGS figures?

I thought SR would be money collected from the sale of the product and therefore money from the therapists?

[slack]

Hey guys! I don't know about you but after some analysis of the Case Study, I was beginning to think Laura was quite annoying! But, you guys should check out this video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDMMwG7RrFQ

It will give you some new insight into the whole case study.

As Leadership and Management seems to be a big issue, I thought I'd give my opinion. I wouldn't exactly classify Nick as Autocratic. His issue with Andrew came about because Laura was on holiday and he was the only one to investigate. And well, pay attention to

"After a lengthy argument, Neil was left with no option but to walk away and wait for Laura to return."

SAY WHAT???? No autocratic leader would walk away! I would say Laura adopts a Task culture. She expects people to work together and offers a decentralized communication network. She trusts people to do the right thing. The problem with this is that, most managers who adopt a Laissez-Faire trust their employees because they are MOTIVATED and SKILLED, Laura trusts the therapists and Andrew almost blindly! The last thing they are are motivated or skilled! And that's fairly explicit in the text! It's difficult to say what Neil is. But this is my personal view.

He has always been a freelancer, and so he has been a flexible worker. He, therefore, has not been especially involved with any organization and so he tends to work alone. We see the same in RO where he seems to only associate with Andrew and the therapists when there is an issue. You could say that he adopts a person culture and some role culture, where he expects all employees to live up to the role attached to their job.

Higher level students:

Rather than trying to decide whether a person is Autocratic, democratic, paterna.....(BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH) think about Blake and Mouton's managerial grid. Try place both Laura and Neil on the Grid....

Laura? Country-Club Style?

Neil? Produce or perish style?

Just a suggestion! These theories are in our syllabus because IBO expects us to use them in the analysis. They would never ask you to use them directly! It's up to you to identify, for any situation, what analysis to use!

[1sippah]

Hey guys! I don't know about you but after some analysis of the Case Study, I was beginning to think Laura was quite annoying! But, you guys should check out this video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDMMwG7RrFQ

It will give you some new insight into the whole case study.

As Leadership and Management seems to be a big issue, I thought I'd give my opinion. I wouldn't exactly classify Nick as Autocratic. His issue with Andrew came about because Laura was on holiday and he was the only one to investigate. And well, pay attention to

"After a lengthy argument, Neil was left with no option but to walk away and wait for Laura to return."

SAY WHAT???? No autocratic leader would walk away! I would say Laura adopts a Task culture. She expects people to work together and offers a decentralized communication network. She trusts people to do the right thing. The problem with this is that, most managers who adopt a Laissez-Faire trust their employees because they are MOTIVATED and SKILLED, Laura trusts the therapists and Andrew almost blindly! The last thing they are are motivated or skilled! And that's fairly explicit in the text! It's difficult to say what Neil is. But this is my personal view.

He has always been a freelancer, and so he has been a flexible worker. He, therefore, has not been especially involved with any organization and so he tends to work alone. We see the same in RO where he seems to only associate with Andrew and the therapists when there is an issue. You could say that he adopts a person culture and some role culture, where he expects all employees to live up to the role attached to their job.

Higher level students:

Rather than trying to decide whether a person is Autocratic, democratic, paterna.....(BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH) think about Blake and Mouton's managerial grid. Try place both Laura and Neil on the Grid....

Laura? Country-Club Style?

Neil? Produce or perish style?

Just a suggestion! These theories are in our syllabus because IBO expects us to use them in the analysis. They would never ask you to use them directly! It's up to you to identify, for any situation, what analysis to use!

I agree with what you have said but that would mean that we could also classify Laura as having adopted role culture because as she may seem nice, she really gives an approach as an autocratic leader the way she does not implement that she does not feel is right which when coupled with her intuitive decision making makes her a very risky leader i.e. in some cases her decisions could be greatly beneficial to the business however they pose an equal amount of risk and could also cause great losses.when it comes to person culture, there is no point where 'I' can see Neil adopting a person culture because he does not really freely allow his subordinates and other people to express their views and act on their whims, I believe he does this only because Laura has functional authority over him even if he does not fully grasp his lack of authority in the business.

An interesting thing we could look at here would be the idea of responsibility and authority because it is clear that Neil has close to no authority in RO however I believe he still holds responsibility for the finance and strategy of RO therefore if they were to invest in the PECs cards in september 2010 and incur a loss in October because of poor cashflow or low sales, Neil would be under the spotlight because he is the director of Finance and strategy. I believe this could be a source of conflict in the business where we can apply staci adams equity theory because Neil was initially motivated by having a part in this NPO, which can also be related to maslows hierarchy of needs where he is in the self actualization level and trying to look for some form of satisfaction past monetary means even though that is still one of his main influential factors probably due to his years of experience with the monetary goal. this means that he has probably defined his success to be measured by output from his years of working. So back to my point, the source of conflict would come about where Neil no longer feels like he has a say in RO and he will be demotivated.

Also I believe it is wrong to say that Neil is motivated by money or PRP because according to me he has reached the self actualization level of maslows hierarchy of needs and he is simply using money as a source of enjoyment, I do not believe that if RO were to continue as they were in the case study and their cash inflows came to 32000, Neil would accept the 3200 dollars because that would even be more than Lauras salary and he had never planned on making money out of this (unless he is an evil conniving bastard and this has been a conspiracy from the start) So I believe that according to business ethics he should and he would have changed his payment terms were the sales trend to continue.

[1sippah]

Quick question for everyone, do you have to pay for a facebook fan page? like if reach out were to make a page on facebook like this http://www.facebook.com/redcross would they have to pay for it or is it free and the same qustion for twitter.

[slack]

Hey guys! I don't know about you but after some analysis of the Case Study, I was beginning to think Laura was quite annoying! But, you guys should check out this video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDMMwG7RrFQ

It will give you some new insight into the whole case study.

As Leadership and Management seems to be a big issue, I thought I'd give my opinion. I wouldn't exactly classify Nick as Autocratic. His issue with Andrew came about because Laura was on holiday and he was the only one to investigate. And well, pay attention to

"After a lengthy argument, Neil was left with no option but to walk away and wait for Laura to return."

SAY WHAT???? No autocratic leader would walk away! I would say Laura adopts a Task culture. She expects people to work together and offers a decentralized communication network. She trusts people to do the right thing. The problem with this is that, most managers who adopt a Laissez-Faire trust their employees because they are MOTIVATED and SKILLED, Laura trusts the therapists and Andrew almost blindly! The last thing they are are motivated or skilled! And that's fairly explicit in the text! It's difficult to say what Neil is. But this is my personal view.

He has always been a freelancer, and so he has been a flexible worker. He, therefore, has not been especially involved with any organization and so he tends to work alone. We see the same in RO where he seems to only associate with Andrew and the therapists when there is an issue. You could say that he adopts a person culture and some role culture, where he expects all employees to live up to the role attached to their job.

Higher level students:

Rather than trying to decide whether a person is Autocratic, democratic, paterna.....(BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH) think about Blake and Mouton's managerial grid. Try place both Laura and Neil on the Grid....

Laura? Country-Club Style?

Neil? Produce or perish style?

Just a suggestion! These theories are in our syllabus because IBO expects us to use them in the analysis. They would never ask you to use them directly! It's up to you to identify, for any situation, what analysis to use!

I agree with what you have said but that would mean that we could also classify Laura as having adopted role culture because as she may seem nice, she really gives an approach as an autocratic leader the way she does not implement that she does not feel is right which when coupled with her intuitive decision making makes her a very risky leader i.e. in some cases her decisions could be greatly beneficial to the business however they pose an equal amount of risk and could also cause great losses.when it comes to person culture, there is no point where 'I' can see Neil adopting a person culture because he does not really freely allow his subordinates and other people to express their views and act on their whims, I believe he does this only because Laura has functional authority over him even if he does not fully grasp his lack of authority in the business.

An interesting thing we could look at here would be the idea of responsibility and authority because it is clear that Neil has close to no authority in RO however I believe he still holds responsibility for the finance and strategy of RO therefore if they were to invest in the PECs cards in september 2010 and incur a loss in October because of poor cashflow or low sales, Neil would be under the spotlight because he is the director of Finance and strategy. I believe this could be a source of conflict in the business where we can apply staci adams equity theory because Neil was initially motivated by having a part in this NPO, which can also be related to maslows hierarchy of needs where he is in the self actualization level and trying to look for some form of satisfaction past monetary means even though that is still one of his main influential factors probably due to his years of experience with the monetary goal. this means that he has probably defined his success to be measured by output from his years of working. So back to my point, the source of conflict would come about where Neil no longer feels like he has a say in RO and he will be demotivated.

Also I believe it is wrong to say that Neil is motivated by money or PRP because according to me he has reached the self actualization level of maslows hierarchy of needs and he is simply using money as a source of enjoyment, I do not believe that if RO were to continue as they were in the case study and their cash inflows came to 32000, Neil would accept the 3200 dollars because that would even be more than Lauras salary and he had never planned on making money out of this (unless he is an evil conniving bastard and this has been a conspiracy from the start) So I believe that according to business ethics he should and he would have changed his payment terms were the sales trend to continue.

I quite like your link to Neil's situation and Stacy Adams Equity theory! I definitely agree that by Laura shutting down all of his input, there would be a significant decrease in his motivation. But you seem to be missing the point on Maslow's hierarchy. Yes, Maslow did insist that when one level is being sought the one's below become insignificant. But, as an analysis, you should really think about how effectively Maslow's theory applies to Neil.

We see in the introductory paragraph to Neil, he was "moved by Laura's story". Yet, he saw the "Business potential of her blog." Yes, he has worked for a long time a derives a satisfaction, perhaps, from working. He was emotionally connected to the cause and so he derives some motivation and satisfaction in developing an organization that helps Autistic kids. BUT, the fact that he saw the "business potential" in Laura's blog, we can correctly deduce that he has some financial intensives, regardless of which factor is more important to him. In fact, the tension in RO is the clash of Laura's intuitive decision making to his Scientific one. It is this scientific process, the one he seems so fond of, that closely relates him to Frederick Taylor. In fact, this is probably one of the reasons that he agreed for a PRP (a motivational approach used by managers who relate to Taylor's theory) in the first place!

"Neil preferred to be more analytical and scientific."

I can take this argument further by looking at option 1. Despite the incorrect calculations, Niel thought that by giving increasing the price for the therapist scheme would motivate students. Higher pay, higher motivation, a classic Taylor belief. He even fails to communicate effectively with Andrew, when Andrew suggests that the workers need other forms of motivation (who knows what Taylor would have said about Maslow's hierarchy had he a chance to see it )

Now, what this means for RO, I guess we'll find out tomorrow!

Well, also, we could question Neil's commitment to the organisation. He's always been a flexible worker, what makes him different this time? What's gonna stop him from up and leaving to work for some other organisation? (Perhaps his $10,000 donation )

As far as leadership is concerned, i'm still pretty confused about a concrete explanation. I think everyones' views are important...

[1sippah]

Hey guys! I don't know about you but after some analysis of the Case Study, I was beginning to think Laura was quite annoying! But, you guys should check out this video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDMMwG7RrFQ

It will give you some new insight into the whole case study.

As Leadership and Management seems to be a big issue, I thought I'd give my opinion. I wouldn't exactly classify Nick as Autocratic. His issue with Andrew came about because Laura was on holiday and he was the only one to investigate. And well, pay attention to

"After a lengthy argument, Neil was left with no option but to walk away and wait for Laura to return."

SAY WHAT???? No autocratic leader would walk away! I would say Laura adopts a Task culture. She expects people to work together and offers a decentralized communication network. She trusts people to do the right thing. The problem with this is that, most managers who adopt a Laissez-Faire trust their employees because they are MOTIVATED and SKILLED, Laura trusts the therapists and Andrew almost blindly! The last thing they are are motivated or skilled! And that's fairly explicit in the text! It's difficult to say what Neil is. But this is my personal view.

He has always been a freelancer, and so he has been a flexible worker. He, therefore, has not been especially involved with any organization and so he tends to work alone. We see the same in RO where he seems to only associate with Andrew and the therapists when there is an issue. You could say that he adopts a person culture and some role culture, where he expects all employees to live up to the role attached to their job.

Higher level students:

Rather than trying to decide whether a person is Autocratic, democratic, paterna.....(BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH) think about Blake and Mouton's managerial grid. Try place both Laura and Neil on the Grid....

Laura? Country-Club Style?

Neil? Produce or perish style?

Just a suggestion! These theories are in our syllabus because IBO expects us to use them in the analysis. They would never ask you to use them directly! It's up to you to identify, for any situation, what analysis to use!

I agree with what you have said but that would mean that we could also classify Laura as having adopted role culture because as she may seem nice, she really gives an approach as an autocratic leader the way she does not implement that she does not feel is right which when coupled with her intuitive decision making makes her a very risky leader i.e. in some cases her decisions could be greatly beneficial to the business however they pose an equal amount of risk and could also cause great losses.when it comes to person culture, there is no point where 'I' can see Neil adopting a person culture because he does not really freely allow his subordinates and other people to express their views and act on their whims, I believe he does this only because Laura has functional authority over him even if he does not fully grasp his lack of authority in the business.

An interesting thing we could look at here would be the idea of responsibility and authority because it is clear that Neil has close to no authority in RO however I believe he still holds responsibility for the finance and strategy of RO therefore if they were to invest in the PECs cards in september 2010 and incur a loss in October because of poor cashflow or low sales, Neil would be under the spotlight because he is the director of Finance and strategy. I believe this could be a source of conflict in the business where we can apply staci adams equity theory because Neil was initially motivated by having a part in this NPO, which can also be related to maslows hierarchy of needs where he is in the self actualization level and trying to look for some form of satisfaction past monetary means even though that is still one of his main influential factors probably due to his years of experience with the monetary goal. this means that he has probably defined his success to be measured by output from his years of working. So back to my point, the source of conflict would come about where Neil no longer feels like he has a say in RO and he will be demotivated.

Also I believe it is wrong to say that Neil is motivated by money or PRP because according to me he has reached the self actualization level of maslows hierarchy of needs and he is simply using money as a source of enjoyment, I do not believe that if RO were to continue as they were in the case study and their cash inflows came to 32000, Neil would accept the 3200 dollars because that would even be more than Lauras salary and he had never planned on making money out of this (unless he is an evil conniving bastard and this has been a conspiracy from the start) So I believe that according to business ethics he should and he would have changed his payment terms were the sales trend to continue.

I quite like your link to Neil's situation and Stacy Adams Equity theory! I definitely agree that by Laura shutting down all of his input, there would be a significant decrease in his motivation. But you seem to be missing the point on Maslow's hierarchy. Yes, Maslow did insist that when one level is being sought the one's below become insignificant. But, as an analysis, you should really think about how effectively Maslow's theory applies to Neil.

We see in the introductory paragraph to Neil, he was "moved by Laura's story". Yet, he saw the "Business potential of her blog." Yes, he has worked for a long time a derives a satisfaction, perhaps, from working. He was emotionally connected to the cause and so he derives some motivation and satisfaction in developing an organization that helps Autistic kids. BUT, the fact that he saw the "business potential" in Laura's blog, we can correctly deduce that he has some financial intensives, regardless of which factor is more important to him. In fact, the tension in RO is the clash of Laura's intuitive decision making to his Scientific one. It is this scientific process, the one he seems so fond of, that closely relates him to Frederick Taylor. In fact, this is probably one of the reasons that he agreed for a PRP (a motivational approach used by managers who relate to Taylor's theory) in the first place!

"Neil preferred to be more analytical and scientific."

I can take this argument further by looking at option 1. Despite the incorrect calculations, Niel thought that by giving increasing the price for the therapist scheme would motivate students. Higher pay, higher motivation, a classic Taylor belief. He even fails to communicate effectively with Andrew, when Andrew suggests that the workers need other forms of motivation (who knows what Taylor would have said about Maslow's hierarchy had he a chance to see it )

Now, what this means for RO, I guess we'll find out tomorrow!

Well, also, we could question Neil's commitment to the organisation. He's always been a flexible worker, what makes him different this time? What's gonna stop him from up and leaving to work for some other organisation? (Perhaps his $10,000 donation )

As far as leadership is concerned, i'm still pretty confused about a concrete explanation. I think everyones' views are important...

Another point of conflict between them (Neil and Laura) or atleast between Neil and the ethical objective of Reach out would be that neils PRP is not directly linked to the objective of the business, the performance in this case is being measured by the revenue generated by RO every month however the objective of the business was helping children with autism thus there would be a clash between the idea of increasing revenue and the idea of helping autistic children as one nullifies the other. there is the idea of a clash of corporate cultures even though they are not two different companies merging, they can be thought of as symbols for the different types of leaders that there are in todays business world (too far? I know literature is over but just thought i would give it a shot)

[1sippah]

by the way slack which school are you from? you seem very intelligent, almost at my calibre.

[slack]

Many people seem to be making that mistake! A PRP is not unethical for a Non-profit, it's actually very useful. This is all a result of the increased competition in the world economy. For a non-profit organization to be successful in today's time, they must behave in the same manner as private sector organisations. This is not only true for non-profits, but also for public sector businesses (of course all of you know this as privatization and re-nationalization)

1sippah, you're in Kenya? Hmmm... I'm finishing exams on friday, after Business P2... If you are too, you might run into me at Gypsies... How will you know it's me? Just look for the drunkest guy there

[natalie van nunen]

Hey guys! I don't know about you but after some analysis of the Case Study, I was beginning to think Laura was quite annoying! But, you guys should check out this video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDMMwG7RrFQ

It will give you some new insight into the whole case study.

As Leadership and Management seems to be a big issue, I thought I'd give my opinion. I wouldn't exactly classify Nick as Autocratic. His issue with Andrew came about because Laura was on holiday and he was the only one to investigate. And well, pay attention to

"After a lengthy argument, Neil was left with no option but to walk away and wait for Laura to return."

SAY WHAT???? No autocratic leader would walk away! I would say Laura adopts a Task culture. She expects people to work together and offers a decentralized communication network. She trusts people to do the right thing. The problem with this is that, most managers who adopt a Laissez-Faire trust their employees because they are MOTIVATED and SKILLED, Laura trusts the therapists and Andrew almost blindly! The last thing they are are motivated or skilled! And that's fairly explicit in the text! It's difficult to say what Neil is. But this is my personal view.

He has always been a freelancer, and so he has been a flexible worker. He, therefore, has not been especially involved with any organization and so he tends to work alone. We see the same in RO where he seems to only associate with Andrew and the therapists when there is an issue. You could say that he adopts a person culture and some role culture, where he expects all employees to live up to the role attached to their job.

Higher level students:

Rather than trying to decide whether a person is Autocratic, democratic, paterna.....(BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH) think about Blake and Mouton's managerial grid. Try place both Laura and Neil on the Grid....

Laura? Country-Club Style?

Neil? Produce or perish style?

Just a suggestion! These theories are in our syllabus because IBO expects us to use them in the analysis. They would never ask you to use them directly! It's up to you to identify, for any situation, what analysis to use!

so what do you thnk Neil's leadership style is then?

and has anyone thought of situational leadership? Laura giving little task behaviour and little supportive behaviour is delegating meaning her subordinates need to be of maturity level M4. they are currently M1-M3

still believe he is autocrat but she walked away from ANdrew because Laura is the dominant one in RO, meaning he would leave her with the decision and either way; being joint directors they would need to run things by each other anyways and since neil couldnt, he HAD to walk away and wait for laura, therefore that little detail means nothing to his leadership style.

Laura? Country-Club Style?

Neil? Produce or perish style?

I think Laura is impoverished style, as she has low communication and therefore low regard for the welfare and needs of her staff. She also shows little effort to really boost the income of RO and performace of RO if she is taking holidays and not keeping communciations between the main link between RO and its customers (Andrew).

yeah I agree that neil is produce or perish. but that means he is most likely autocratic... so how dont you agree with autrocratic leadership for him?

good input

[natalie van nunen]

Many people seem to be making that mistake! A PRP is not unethical for a Non-profit, it's actually very useful. This is all a result of the increased competition in the world economy. For a non-profit organization to be successful in today's time, they must behave in the same manner as private sector organisations. This is not only true for non-profits, but also for public sector businesses (of course all of you know this as privatization and re-nationalization)

1sippah, you're in Kenya? Hmmm... I'm finishing exams on friday, after Business P2... If you are too, you might run into me at Gypsies... How will you know it's me? Just look for the drunkest guy there

reach out has no or negligible competition

[1sippah]

Many people seem to be making that mistake! A PRP is not unethical for a Non-profit, it's actually very useful. This is all a result of the increased competition in the world economy. For a non-profit organization to be successful in today's time, they must behave in the same manner as private sector organisations. This is not only true for non-profits, but also for public sector businesses (of course all of you know this as privatization and re-nationalization)

1sippah, you're in Kenya? Hmmm... I'm finishing exams on friday, after Business P2... If you are too, you might run into me at Gypsies... How will you know it's me? Just look for the drunkest guy there

I am not saying that PRP is unethical however in this case, since it is not directly linked to the objective of the business i.e. the performance is not measured by the success of the objectives but it is measured by a different factor which in this case is revenue. We can argue that this is the reason that all of Neil's ideas seem to be money related and none of them seem to directly or immediately complement the objective of the business which is to help children with autism. We can argue that eventually, Neils options and ideas will lead to RO helping autistic children but then again is it ethical to continue spending money on marketing and outsourcing schemes rather than buying the PECs cards. That is where the idea of ethics comes in, making the autistic children wait.

An interesting scenario that i was told about some time ago was about an eye clinic somewhere in Kangemi which is a Kenyan slum and it was entirely started and funded by donations. after constructing the eye clinic and all the startup costs, there was 40 million shillings left in their account, they decided to leave that money in a bank earning interest and run the clinic on the interest it would earn every year so they limited the amount of free service they would give to the public according to the interest rates. this worked well for a few years till the bank collapsed and they lost the 40 million that was sitting in the bank. The ethical dilemma here is, was it right for them to keep that money stagnant even though it would ensure the sutainability of the clinic rather than use the money and have helped so many more people than they did.

Thus we can apply the same idea to reach out where Neil is trying to ensure the sustainability of RO and Laura is simply trying to have as many people benefit from RO as possible. factors that would influence the most viable decision in this case would be the economic climate which we are told is in a recession therefore we cannot be sure of whether businesses will have resources in the future and whether business will survive or not.

I finish on friday too, I guess we gonna meet up at gypsies. you'll recognize me as the most stoned guy there and the sexiest guy there.

[slack]

Here is a quote for you from Wikipedia:

"First, a founder's passion and charisma, initially essential to the successful establishment of an organization, becomes a limiting rather than a creative and productive force. As an organization matures, professionally-trained and talented people are normally engaged and the board is expanded. The founder's domination of the decision making process may frustrate effective and inclusive group decision making."

I will continue my previous discussion(s) in a few minutes.

[slack]

Many people seem to be making that mistake! A PRP is not unethical for a Non-profit, it's actually very useful. This is all a result of the increased competition in the world economy. For a non-profit organization to be successful in today's time, they must behave in the same manner as private sector organisations. This is not only true for non-profits, but also for public sector businesses (of course all of you know this as privatization and re-nationalization)

1sippah, you're in Kenya? Hmmm... I'm finishing exams on friday, after Business P2... If you are too, you might run into me at Gypsies... How will you know it's me? Just look for the drunkest guy there

reach out has no or negligible competition

From Wikipedia:

"While they are able to earn a profit, more accurately called a surplus, such earnings must be retained by the organization for its self-preservation, expansion and future plans. Earnings may not benefit individuals or stake-holders. While some nonprofit organizations put substantial funds into hiring and rewarding their internal corporate leadership, middle-management personnel and workers, others employ unpaid volunteers and even executives may work for no compensation. However, since the late 1980s there has been a growing consensus that nonprofits can achieve their corporate targets more effectively by using some of the same methods developed in for-profit enterprises. These include effective internal management, ensuring accountability for results, and monitoring the performance of different divisions or projects in order to better benefit from their capital and workers. Those require satisfied management and that, in turn, begins with the organization's mission."

[slack]

Many people seem to be making that mistake! A PRP is not unethical for a Non-profit, it's actually very useful. This is all a result of the increased competition in the world economy. For a non-profit organization to be successful in today's time, they must behave in the same manner as private sector organisations. This is not only true for non-profits, but also for public sector businesses (of course all of you know this as privatization and re-nationalization)

1sippah, you're in Kenya? Hmmm... I'm finishing exams on friday, after Business P2... If you are too, you might run into me at Gypsies... How will you know it's me? Just look for the drunkest guy there

I am not saying that PRP is unethical however in this case, since it is not directly linked to the objective of the business i.e. the performance is not measured by the success of the objectives but it is measured by a different factor which in this case is revenue. We can argue that this is the reason that all of Neil's ideas seem to be money related and none of them seem to directly or immediately complement the objective of the business which is to help children with autism. We can argue that eventually, Neils options and ideas will lead to RO helping autistic children but then again is it ethical to continue spending money on marketing and outsourcing schemes rather than buying the PECs cards. That is where the idea of ethics comes in, making the autistic children wait.

An interesting scenario that i was told about some time ago was about an eye clinic somewhere in Kangemi which is a Kenyan slum and it was entirely started and funded by donations. after constructing the eye clinic and all the startup costs, there was 40 million shillings left in their account, they decided to leave that money in a bank earning interest and run the clinic on the interest it would earn every year so they limited the amount of free service they would give to the public according to the interest rates. this worked well for a few years till the bank collapsed and they lost the 40 million that was sitting in the bank. The ethical dilemma here is, was it right for them to keep that money stagnant even though it would ensure the sutainability of the clinic rather than use the money and have helped so many more people than they did.

Thus we can apply the same idea to reach out where Neil is trying to ensure the sustainability of RO and Laura is simply trying to have as many people benefit from RO as possible. factors that would influence the most viable decision in this case would be the economic climate which we are told is in a recession therefore we cannot be sure of whether businesses will have resources in the future and whether business will survive or not.

I finish on friday too, I guess we gonna meet up at gypsies. you'll recognize me as the most stoned guy there and the sexiest guy there.

With no offence, I have to say that you have taken this PRP issue WAAAAY too far! I hope the quote that I posted above will lead you to agree as well. NPOs today are increasingly using strategies that for-profits often employ. These include, and are certainly not limited to, motivational approaches. The idea is to get the best out of their employees.

And besides, Neil is the financing manager. He has to look for sources of finance to get the PECs cards made (which are to help families with autism, he is not against Laura's objectives in anyway whatsoever, he just dislikes her leadership style and her indifference). Once these start being made, is when RO will start to use most of its surplus. This is because Laura's vision is to provide the cards at a cheap rate. These rates they intend to be charge will have to be lower than the cost of their production. Ergo, their surplus will reduce significantly, since these will make up for the extra costs of production. Neil's commission will inevitably decrease as a result (and if you are a good student you will note this as a potential problem).

Laura is trying to reach as many families as possible, I agree. But, in the first quote that I posted, you should realize that all the friction she is causing is because she intends to remain the dominant decision maker. There is some relationship here to resistance to change (and if you look at past paper one's there is almost always a discussion on resistance to change, especially in section C).

[1sippah]

Many people seem to be making that mistake! A PRP is not unethical for a Non-profit, it's actually very useful. This is all a result of the increased competition in the world economy. For a non-profit organization to be successful in today's time, they must behave in the same manner as private sector organisations. This is not only true for non-profits, but also for public sector businesses (of course all of you know this as privatization and re-nationalization)

1sippah, you're in Kenya? Hmmm... I'm finishing exams on friday, after Business P2... If you are too, you might run into me at Gypsies... How will you know it's me? Just look for the drunkest guy there

I am not saying that PRP is unethical however in this case, since it is not directly linked to the objective of the business i.e. the performance is not measured by the success of the objectives but it is measured by a different factor which in this case is revenue. We can argue that this is the reason that all of Neil's ideas seem to be money related and none of them seem to directly or immediately complement the objective of the business which is to help children with autism. We can argue that eventually, Neils options and ideas will lead to RO helping autistic children but then again is it ethical to continue spending money on marketing and outsourcing schemes rather than buying the PECs cards. That is where the idea of ethics comes in, making the autistic children wait.

An interesting scenario that i was told about some time ago was about an eye clinic somewhere in Kangemi which is a Kenyan slum and it was entirely started and funded by donations. after constructing the eye clinic and all the startup costs, there was 40 million shillings left in their account, they decided to leave that money in a bank earning interest and run the clinic on the interest it would earn every year so they limited the amount of free service they would give to the public according to the interest rates. this worked well for a few years till the bank collapsed and they lost the 40 million that was sitting in the bank. The ethical dilemma here is, was it right for them to keep that money stagnant even though it would ensure the sutainability of the clinic rather than use the money and have helped so many more people than they did.

Thus we can apply the same idea to reach out where Neil is trying to ensure the sustainability of RO and Laura is simply trying to have as many people benefit from RO as possible. factors that would influence the most viable decision in this case would be the economic climate which we are told is in a recession therefore we cannot be sure of whether businesses will have resources in the future and whether business will survive or not.

I finish on friday too, I guess we gonna meet up at gypsies. you'll recognize me as the most stoned guy there and the sexiest guy there.

With no offence, I have to say that you have taken this PRP issue WAAAAY too far! I hope the quote that I posted above will lead you to agree as well. NPOs today are increasingly using strategies that for-profits often employ. These include, and are certainly not limited to, motivational approaches. The idea is to get the best out of their employees.

And besides, Neil is the financing manager. He has to look for sources of finance to get the PECs cards made (which are to help families with autism, he is not against Laura's objectives in anyway whatsoever, he just dislikes her leadership style and her indifference). Once these start being made, is when RO will start to use most of its surplus. This is because Laura's vision is to provide the cards at a cheap rate. These rates they intend to be charge will have to be lower than the cost of their production. Ergo, their surplus will reduce significantly, since these will make up for the extra costs of production. Neil's commission will inevitably decrease as a result (and if you are a good student you will note this as a potential problem).

Laura is trying to reach as many families as possible, I agree. But, in the first quote that I posted, you should realize that all the friction she is causing is because she intends to remain the dominant decision maker. There is some relationship here to resistance to change (and if you look at past paper one's there is almost always a discussion on resistance to change, especially in section C).

Touche my drunkard friend, I am now going to take a few hours to cram as much as I can of this new study guide I have after doing a line or two and I will get back to you once I am about to crash and have achieved Business and management Nirvana.