🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
HomeClass Notes1,200,000CA670,000

EASIA234 Lecture 8: EASIA 236 Assignment 8

71 views1 pages
School
University of Alberta
Department
East Asian Studies
Course
EASIA234
Professor
calar

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Choose one of the performers who has played the lead character in a film that we have watched this semester from the goddess to yi yi. The performer must have at least 10 credits to their name: your assignment must order their filmography into 3 categories. These categories must be specific and be of your own making. Each category should have at least three films in it. You may use the same film if it fits in two different categories. Write a paragraph in which you describe the performer s career to date.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers

Related Documents

EASIA234 Lecture 2: EASIA 236 Assignment 1
chocolatehyena126
FILM 1F94 Lecture Notes - Lecture 19: Robert De Niro, Johnny Depp, Chameleon
sapphiretoad544
FIST 300 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Alejandro Jodorowsky, Tommy Wiseau, Giovanni Lombardo Radice
plumrhinoceros127

Related Questions

Read the article below and write a brief (1-2 paragraph) summary. This assignment should be approximately 250 words . Complete this assignment as a Word document.

Time to Scrap Performance Appraisals

Times have changed. More and more companies have decided to radically change (read “scrap” or “re-engineer”) their performance appraisal process.

Last week at our research conference we spoke with Adobe, Juniper, Kelly Services, and a variety of other companies who have decided to do away with traditional performance ratings and dramatically change the annual appraisal process.

Our research shows that this is a strong and positive trend.

Why the process must change.

Why do companies have annual reviews in the first place? They are an artifact from traditional top-down organizations where we had to “weed out” the bottom performers every year. By forcing managers to rate people once per year we can have annual talent reviews and decide who gets more money, who to promote, and who to let go.

Coupled with the performance rating is the “potential” rating, which tries to capture an individual’s potential to move up two levels in the organization (the traditional definition).

This approach is based on a philosophy that “ we cant totally trust managers” so we’re going to force them to fit people into these rating scales. And in many companies (around 20%) there are forced distributions, which mandate that some percent of employees are rated at the bottom and only a limited percent can be rated at the top.

The well publicized problems with this process abound. These include:

Employees need and want regular feedback (daily, weekly), so a once-a-year review is not only too late but it’s often a surprise. Regular coaching is the key to alignment and performance.

Managers cannot typically “judge” an entire year of work from an individual at one time (imagine if your spouse gave you an annual review!), so the annual review is awkward and uncomfortable for both manager and employee.

Manager-employee relationships are not 1:1 like they used to be. We work with many leaders and peers during the year, so one person cannot adequately rate you without lots of peer input.

While some employees are a poor fit and likely are poor performers, these issues should be addressed immediately, not at the end of the year.

Some companies really do have a lot of high performers, so forced ranking eliminates great people and damages the culture.

People are inspired and motivated by positive, constructive feedback – and the “appraisal” process almost always works against this.

The most valuable part of an appraisal is the “development planning” conversation – what can one do to improve performance and engagement – and this is often left to a small box on the review form.

Companies are nervous about eliminating this process because:

We need a fair and validated way to distribute compensation increases (don’t we?)

We need a record of low performance when we let someone go

We need to capture performance data in an employee’s profile for future promotion and other talent reviews, development plans, and career migration

We need a way to make sure managers are doing their jobs well.

Well, I’ve probably discussed these issues with 100+ companies over the last five years and our research shows more and more that companies are ready to let this process go.

Organization structures have changed and companies need to be more agile. We have a shortage of key talent and the keys to success now focus on regular alignment, coaching, creating passion and engagement, and continuous employee development.

The new keys to success:

Develop a “feedback-rich” culture and set of tools (often online, sometimes formal, often informal) that encourages all employees to give each other feedback. Tools from companies like Achievers, Globoforce, and most HR software vendors now enable and make this easy.

Separate the discussions about performance from discussions about potential and future career plans. Yes we need to evaluate people when raise time comes, but that can be a totally different conversation from.

Talk about performance regularly and let employees create their own goals on a regular basis. Force managers to provide ongoing feedback and teach them how to have honest conversations.

Assume that employees already know something about their own performance, and force them to self-assess. People tend to have a good idea of their own strengths and weaknesses – give them an open and positive opportunity to share it. That starts the dialogue about expectations and the match between their self-assessment and that of the organization.

Enable managers to assess performance regularly. Software teams now use Agile tools which evaluate code on a weekly basis. Managers should be giving people feedback regularly. If they learn to do this on a regular basis it will get easier and employees will learn to appreciate it.

Focus managers on hiring the best, so they build a team which strives for 100% high performers. This is never possible of course, but rather than assuming that 20% of your employees will perform poorly, spend more time on assessment, culture, and fit to make sure very few low performers make it into the organization in the first place.

Remember that everyone wants to succeed. If they aren’t performing well it’s not necessarily their fault – the organization should take responsibility for helping them find a better fit if possible.

Set and reset goals frequently. Companies that set performance goals quarterly generate 31% greater returns from their performance process than those who do it annually, and those who do it monthly get even better results. This means employees get feedback on a continuous basis (most sales organizations work this way). Read our research for more details.

Beware of pay for performance plans. While many companies (particularly investment banking, sales) have large pay for performance plans, research showsthat these can create perverse behavior. People focus on their own goals at the expense of the organization. In sales related roles this process works well – when you move to customer service, engineering, and other “builder” roles they can create problems.

Give your leaders a cultural framework and set of values to work from. Companies like Juniper and Deckers (Uggs shoes) focus very heavily on corporate values, forcing managers to hire and manage to these values. This makes selection easier and enables us to evaluate and coach people against higher level frameworks.

Invest in leadership development. Being a manager is a tough job. Managers at all levels struggle with selection, hiring, training, coaching, and evaluation. Give them time and tools to learn, a framework for feedback, and a continuous development process so they learn how to become better.

Reward talent “production” not talent “hoarding.” If you pay your managers to “produce output,” they will focus heavily on talent performance and evaluation. This may be a good thing, but ultimately companies thrive by building skills – so in addition to encouraging managers to produce good work, incent them to produce good talent as well.

I’ve had the opportunity to study HR and performance management for almost 15 years now, and this topic has been controversial for a long time. In today’s globalized,talent constrained workplace it’s clear to me that the traditional appraisal has to change.

Businesses thrive on agility, speed, passion, and alignment. The process of driving and measuring performance has to do the same.

Objectives:

Ý· Learn how individuals contribute to teamwork

Ý· Experience some of the features of group work and teamwork

Ý· Understand what managers and organizational developers do to transform

Ý· groups into teams

Ý· Articulate the tangible benefits (both quantitative and qualitative) of

Ý· high-performing teams

Ý· Finish with an interest in learning more about these concepts and

Ý· techniques to apply what you learn

Background: For this assignment, you will plan and play a game with your family or friends, or at work based on the idea of the classic prisoner's dilemma. If you have had a class on game theory, you will be well aware of this concept. It forms the basis of many TV game shows. The prisoner's dilemma was illustrated in Truman Capote's book, "In Cold Blood" concerning the 1959 robbery of a Kansas farmhouse by Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, who murdered their victims in order to eliminate the witnesses. After the men were captured, the police interrogated them separately. To get a confession, the police offered the men a reduced sentence for cooperating. Failure to cooperate would result in a death penalty charge for both.

In the prisoner's dilemma, if both parties cooperate they are mildly punished; if one betrays another, one is severely punished while the other goes free; and if both betray one-another, both are moderately punished. Can you think of settings where you work in which the organizational structure has created a prisoner's dilemma? Competition can (but does not necessarily) bring out conflict.

In game theory, there are non-cooperative and cooperative games. A non-cooperative zero-sum game has a definite winner and loser. For one to win, one must lose. We often think of politicking as an element of that. A cooperative game is where everyone who plays is better off for having played than not having played the game. That is not to say that everyone is equally well off, but simply better off than they were before playing. Hence, even in a cooperative game, some people will likely benefit more than others.

Instructions

  • Review in your textbook, the Big Five personality dimensions, pp. 82�84, and then consider the 3.1 Personality Insights inventory, pp. 89�91
  • Select four or five friends, coworkers, or family members and have them take the personality inventory
  • Plan and play a game with the participants
  • Write a 5-10 page paper that addresses the assignment questions below


As you plan and play your game, you will negotiate the type of game you want to play and your role in it. Strive to determine some personal characteristics of the game participants a head of time, or by observing them. Consider how the personal characteristics of the individuals in the game manifest themselves in the informal roles they assume during the planning and execution of the game.

For the purpose of this assignment, you will want both a cooperative and a competitive element. To do that, you can form several groups to compete and cooperate with each other, or you can have individuals in one group compete and cooperate. You can use rewards and/or punishments to create the competitive/cooperative motivations.



Evaluation: When groups are formed, we want to consider how organizational structures, processes, and situations impact on group motivation, politics, and goals achievement. Alignment of all of these structural, personal, and interpersonal components will help to ensure that the group will meld into a team. A defining feature of teamwork (versus group work) is cooperation!

One of the factors that affect cooperation is conflict. Conflict is defined as when someone perceives that his/her interests are opposed or negatively impacted by another. Conflict can at times produce positive results depending on the basis for the conflict and how the conflict is handled (functional conflict). The worst kind of dysfunctional conflict produces betrayal.

Note that team performance can be observed in how well the team coordinates their interdependencies, works efficiently, communicates, and accomplishes their mission. Consequently, as you implement your game, assess your players based on these factors and the informal roles they play.

After you have played the game, reflect on the personality assessments your participants took, and then consider how they planned and played the game.

Write a (5- 10) page analysis to address the following questions:

1. How well did the personality assessments reflect in the behaviors participants displayed during the game?

2. What do these assessments tell us about how we perceive ourselves versus how others perceive us?

3. What informal roles did participants assume during the game, and were they different from the planning portion from the playing portion of the exercise?

4. What did I learn about myself? For example, did the exercise show that you have characteristic ways of relating to others that are distinctive, or similar, to those the others? Did the exercise show that in a particular type of situation you acted in a particular way, or that when others acted in a particular way, you felt happy or anxious or angry, etc.?

5. What did I learn about someone else in the exercise? Did you see something new about them, such as "they seemed more capable than I imagined," or "inattentive when things were stressful?"

6. In playing your game, what could you have done to increase cooperative behaviors?

7. Based on your game experience, what are some of the key factors involved in gaining cooperation from people in a business setting?


8. How would you go about getting cooperation from a "difficult" co-worker? Give an example or scenario.



Please provide a unique type of game theory preferably instead of Mafia Game.


Text:

Organizational Behavior and Management 10th Edition

John Ivancevich, Robert Konopaske, Michael Matteson



I have a essay written up already, the problem is that I submitted it and received a 62% return from turnitin, which is totally unacceptable. It must be below 20%. Is it possible for you to look over it, make any corrections or suggestions to re-submit it. The majority of the repetitiveness was from my intro paragraph and the definitions I used in the essay. Sent at 04:42 AM The essay is attach. I will need this by this evening if that's possible. thanks

Identify the type of corporate restricting that fits with common theories of what are assumed to be causes of mergers and acquisitions.

Corporate reconstructing is more often defined as re-designing organization’s practice and structure; so to remain competitive and sustainable in the market (s). There may be several reasons for corporate restructuring. These includes, but not limited to, re-positioning in the market, discovery of a new market or becoming more profitable and/or economical. The corporate restructuring is generally classified into or two different categories: operational reconstructing and financial reconstructing. This entails changes in the alignment of firm’s asset structure by acquiring new business outright, by partial sale, by a spin-off of companies or via product lines. This can also include downsizing through closure of non-profitable units. Financial reconstructing deals with the changes in the capital structure of the firm. Share repurchase or adding debt in capital structure; just to name. Financial limiting hardly deals with mergers and acquisitions, hence we will discuss the cause of mergers and acquisitioning and how it is related to that the operational restructuring only.

Omit the chart in the question!

There are several types of Restructuring are given below:

A merger is a combination of two or more firms who combine all operations, officers, structure and other functions of business to form a new entity. Desired effect being not just the accumulation of assets and liabilities of the distinct entities, but also to achieve several other benefits such as: economics of scale, acquisition of new technologies and having access to new markets. Additionally, the merger allows for one company giving shareholders in the other stock in exchange for surrounding the stock of the first company. And it allow for the entities to retain its original identity.

Mergers can be classified into the following categories:

Horizontal Mergers

Two merged units were doing the same business i.e. TMobile and Sprint they were competitors with one another in the market. The basic motive in this type of merger is to consolidate in the market so as to gain advantage in negotiating with customers as well as having better position with respect to other competitors.

Vertical Mergers

This type of mergers is conducted between customer and suppliers of a value chain process and main motive in this type of merger is gain maximum efficiency in supply chain and minimization of transaction cost.

Congener Mergers

In this type of mergers, the two firms will be sharing similar kind of industry structure at least in one form of their operation and therefore try to combine operation in that one form and get efficiency benefit in supply chain and other operations.

Conglomerate

A conglomerate merger is a merger between two firms having unrelated business. The motive behind a conglomerate is a.) Better utilization of financial resources b.) Increase in debt capacity, c.) Increase in the share price by increased EPS with decreased cost capital d) Cross selling and e.) Synergy

Cash-out merger

In this type of merger the share of one unit involved in merger don’t want to retain their share in the merged unit and therefore are compensated with cash in place of the share.

Acquisitions or take-over has said to have happened when the acquirer company buys out majority of the shares of the acquired company and the ownership of the assets and liabilities of the acquired company get transferred to the acquirer company. The process of acquisition or take-over may be conducted in both friendly and hostile manner depending upon the specific strategy of the acquirer.

Friendly takeover

In a friendly takeover, the target’s board and management recommend shareholders’ approval. To gain control, the acquiring company usually will offer a premium to the current stock price. The excess of the price over the target’s premerger share price is called a purchase premium and can vary widely by country, which reflects the perceived value of obtaining a controlling interest in the target, the value of expected synergies resulting from combining the two entities and any overpayment of the target firm. Acquirers often prefer friendly takeovers because the post-merger integrations process in usually more expeditious when both parties are cooperating fully and customer, employee attrition is less.

Hostile takeover

A Hostile takeover occurs when the offer is unsolicited, the approach was contested by the target’s management and control changed hands. The acquirer prefers hostile mode rove the friendly mode only when it becomes possible to acquire the shares in a friendly mode. The acquirer may attempt to circumvent management by offering to buy shares directly from the targets from the target’s shareholders and buy shares in a public stock exchange. A hostile takeover can be accomplished through either a tender offer or a proxy fight.

The Pros to a merge and an acquisition is that both types of transactions include the potential increase in the competitiveness, cost-efficiency and stock value of the new enterprise. And with everything pro there has to be Cons. One disadvantage of these transactions; it could be very expensive. A significant amount of capital typically must be raided before entering negotiations. Another mergers drawback is that there is now a new owner, co-owners, in which they must now collaborate.

In conclusion any entity or entities that have chosen to merge or entering an acquisition should consider prior to move. Identify the goals of acquisition clearly, if the move is a good fit and what conditions must be met for the pursing the merge or the acquisition. An in-depth due diligence must occur; the financial records must be thoroughly examined, is the marketplace a profitable absolute, as well as the senior executives should also be conducted. There could be potential for disaster if all areas are not explored. Negotiation process is should have clear written rules and guidelines before following through with the merger or acquisition. Assembling an acquisition team can be very valuable to the success of the new owners. The team will be able to define the responsibilities of each company; considering all parties are in agreement with the new implementations such as computer systems, new HR policies and so forth. Lastly, be flexible and ready for unexpected surprises and have a supplemental plan in case of potential disasters.