What demotivates you?

What demotivates or discourages you?

I feel discouraged, because I am unsure of what to say to prospects.

What demotivates you to do the job?

When a interviewer asks what demotivates you at work, they want to know what brings down your energy levels and motivation. Some things that might demotivate you include bullying co-workers, negative co-workers, low moral, and negative managers.

What do you understand by public crowding out of private sector investments?

When government gets the deficit generated due to govt spending by borrowing money from the open market ; creating an increase in interest rate ; which eventually demotivates investments in the privates sector it is called public crowding out of private sector investment.

Why zero inflation is worse than mild inflation?

mild inflation is better because in the first place it motivates producers in producing more, since price increase is an incentive to them. secondly , excess demand will be partially regulated in mild inflation coz price increase reduces, hence, prospects of higher inflation minimised. zero inflation on the other hand demotivates producers coz there are no changes in price levels, this leads to low out put and hence, loss of GDP and consequently unemployment may crop in. by griffin masoambeta miracle year 2 bunda college of agriculture, Lilongwe university of agriculture and natural resources(LUANAR)

What are the advantages and disadvantages of tall organizational structures?

There are various advantages of tall organizations. Firstly, within tall organizational structure there is a close supervisory control because of the low span of managers. Secondly, it is a more authoritative structure as a consequence, the roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. Thirdly, in a tall structure the responsible person is other accountable to the higher authorities. Fourthly, this structure enhances the control of the top regulation over the organization. On the other hand, there are some disadvantages of high-ceilinged organizations. The primary disadvantage of this structure is that employees are less motivated within this structure therefore, such organizations lack innovation. Secondly, verdict making is slow because for every decision, the approval has to be taken from the higher authorities. Thirdly, towering structure creates communication barriers between the upper and lower management. Moreover, less benefits and rewards are given to the body in the tall organizational structures, which demotivates the workers.

Describe the difference between positive versus negative stress?

Positive stress is called Eustress and it is a normal part of our everyday life. This type of stress positively affects us and keeps us going. It has a motivational effect and increases our activity and productivity. Eustress is essential for our success and has to be praised.The other negative type of stress - Distress is the type we usually refer to when we are talking about stress in general. This type of stress has a negative effects on our health as it affects our mind and our body. Distress demotivates us and increases the tension in our body, it prevents us to think clearly and calmly and can have a serious effects on our health. Low levels of this negative stress are constantly present in our lives and we already have a ways to reduce it without even knowing.Some of these easy stress relief techniques are:- exercise- stretching- controlled breathing- humor (funny movies, jokes, pranks, ...)- stress relief games- stress relief balls- socializing (being with other people can help greatly when we are trying to reduce the stress)- meditation- yoga- proper nutritionProbably you will find some activity on this list that you do on a regular basis. So without even knowing you are reducing the negative stress and releasing the tension out of your body.

Can you mix marjuana with flexeril?

Just the fact that anyone would ask such a ridiculous question shows the ignorance of the individual. Marijuana should not be smoked unless it is used for medical necessity... I guess what you are asking is doing so any more detrimental to your health in that combination??? No, the two together have no interaction that would cause it to be any worse for your health. ---edit Oh dear, that is one of the most appallingly bad answers I've ever seen. To actually answer your question without judging you, I would say combining a depressant with a stimulant is never a great idea. Dexedrine is basically speed, and marijuana is a CNS depressant. There are mixed results from person to person depending on how much speed and pot are involved. Marijuana is rarely going to be the drug that helps facilitate a dangerous interaction. Combining dexedrine with excessive alcohol, now, there is more potential for danger. However, if you were prescribed Dexedrine for ADD or ADHD, you may want to lay off the marijuana. That's going to work against you. The DX keeps you focused and normal, but the pot detaches, demotivates, depersonalizes, depresses and deludes. It slows down your thinking, impairs memory. All this as a cost for taking the edge off a bit. It's never safe to mix uppers with downers unless you're the guy from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, who, apparently had no fear of drug interactions. You just never know, so it's best to keep them separate, and try to slowly get off the marijuana. It's no help for ADD, ADHD.

Who said If you want someone to do a good job you need to give them a good job to do?

"If you want someone to do a good job, give them a good job to do."This is a quote attributed to the American psychologist Frederick Hertzberg. It is associated with his "Dual Structure Theory" or "Two Factor Theory" which discusses work-place motivation.Motivation of workers, while often tampered with by HR departments (and others) in Western style management structures, is most easily achieved by the replacement of traditional Western style management with methods originating within Japanese manufacturing in the 1950s.This is the principle reason why well motivated workers are such a rare occurrence outside of Japan and Korea.Ironically, one of the principle architects of Japan's 'economic miracle' was an American, Dr. W. Edwards Deming, who applied statistical methods of process control (SPC) developed by the physicist and statistician Walter Shewart, also American.Although it sounds 'dry' or 'dull', this methodology is at the core of 'giving some a good job to do'. Another hugely influential person in this regard was Taiichi Ohno, who is considered the father of the Toyota Production System (TPS). TPS is often called 'Lean Manufacturing' by those companies that have adopted it.A leading British figure in this field, who has done much to adapt the TPS to the work of service based organisations is John Seddon, an Occupational Psychologist and founder of Vanguard Consulting and inventor of the Vanguard Method.Seddon's work has given service based organisations (including those in the public sector) the opportunity to give their workers 'a good job to do' by recognising the key differences as well as similarities between systems of work that deliver excellent customer service and excellent manufactured products.The key success factor for both manufacturing and service based companies who want to give their workforces 'a good job to do' is; to employ 'Systems Thinking' in the way they design and manage their work.Traditional, Western style management, (often called 'Command & Control' by Systems Thinkers) is based on Taylorism. It divides work functionally and keeps managers, who make decisions about the work (alone), detached from it. They use arbitrary, target driven measurements to judge the standards of the work and its outputs.Systems thinkers on the other hand, design work by studying customer demand and considering the satisfaction (usually the delight) of the customer to be the purpose of the work. They create systems of work that deliver goods or services to meet those demands and use measures which are derived from the work and its purpose. Those measures are used by the workforce and managers to make decisions about the work and the way it flows through the system. This tends to be a highly efficient way to deliver excellent products and services and it also tends to eliminate waste within a system. As workers are responsible for their work and the decisions they make about it, they also tend to do a very good job. They are motivated because they have a good job to do. This methodology also has innovation 'built in', as everyone's job becomes 'improve the work' as well as serve the customer.Flipping the coin, we might think about what demotivates a workforce. Command and control managers believe their activities, plans and measures and the decisions derived from them, put them in control and that any problems that occur must therefore be the fault of workers. However, this is not the case. Deming showed that 95% of problems are system based, only 5% can be attributed to the workforce.People taking the blame for what is not their fault, clearly doesn't inspire or motivate them. Their 'best efforts' in a bad system will never amount to anything.Command and control thinking removes decision making from the workforce and in so doing, divorces people's intellects from their work and robs them of most of the job satisfaction that they would otherwise have.This is part of a quote, which illustrates the point, from Konosuke Matshushita a Japanese industrialist who built such companies as Panasonic and Technics."Your firms are built on the Taylor Model; even worse, so are your heads. With your bosses doing the thinking while the workers wield the screwdrivers, you're convinced deep down that this is the correct way to run a business. For you, the essence of leadership is getting the ideas out of the heads of the bosses and into the hands of the labour. We are beyond the Taylor Model; business, we know, is now so complex and difficult, the survival of firms so hazardous in an environment increasingly unpredictable, competitive, and fraught with danger, that their continued existence depends on the day-to-day mobilization of every ounce of intelligence. For us, the essence of effective leadership is precisely the art of mobilizing and pulling together the intellectual resources of all employees in the service of the firm. Only by drawing on the combined brainpower of all its employees can a firm face up to the turbulence and constraints of today's environment."Systems Thinking in the Public Sector, by John Seddonhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Systems-Thinking-Public-Sector-Regime/dp/0955008182

What is the difference between Economic Value Added and Return on Investment?

ROI was developed by the DuPont Powder Company in the early 1900s to help manage the vertically integrated enterprise (Johnson & Kaplan, 1987). The intent of this measure is to evaluate the success of a company or division by comparing its operating income to its invested capital. A firm can improve ROI in two ways. First, the profit margin earned per sales dollar can be increased. Second, the sales revenue generated per dollar of invested capital can be increased (this is known as asset turnover). Exhibit 1 shows ROI in equation form and includes a brief numerical illustration of the ROI calculation. The appeal of ROI is that it controls for size differences across plants or divisions. For example, assume the managers of divisions A and B earned $1,000,000 and $800,000 in operating income respectively. A naive interpretation of these differences in operating income would be that the manager of division A outperformed the manager of division B. This viewpoint is naive because the source of division A's higher income may be its greater size relative to division B. To control this problem, ROI is used to measure each division's income relative to the asset base deployed, thereby standardizing the computation into a ratio while deemphasizing the absolute amount. The primary limitation of ROI is that it can encourage managers, who are evaluated and rewarded based solely on this measure, to make investment divisions that are in their own best interests, while not being in the best interests of the company as a whole (Morse, et al., 1996). For example, Exhibit 2 (Panel A) contains a fact scenario involving The Ohio Company's printing division. Currently, this division, which has a weighted average cost of capital of 10%,(3) is focused on the magazine publishing market niche, which has a projected ROI of 15%. The printing division manager is contemplating two new investment opportunities - home repair books and garden catalogs - both of which could potentially be funded by The Ohio Company. A financial analysis shows that the home repair books investment opportunity would generate an ROI of 13.7%, while the garden catalogs alternative would generate an ROI of 18.8%. Assuming the printing division manager is compensated based solely on ROI, she will be motivated to pursue only the garden catalog option because it would increase the projected ROI of 15% currently being earned in magazine publishing. She would not pursue the home repair books alternative because it would lower her projected ROI and adversely affect her performance evaluation and compensation. Conversely, the company would prefer that she pursue both alternatives because each exceeds the 10% cost of capital.(4) Should the printing division manager be blamed for not being a team player? Well, imagine the frustration of making investment choices in the best interests of the company and being "rewarded" with a pay cut because ROI declined from the prior year! EVA helps overcome the goal incongruence that exists between the manager and the firm in this situation. Using EVA instead of ROI to reward the printing division manager would motivate her to accept any investment alternatives that generate a return greater than the company's 10% cost of capital. Exhibit 2 (Panel B) shows the EVA calculations for each of the printing division's investment opportunities. The home repair books investment option generates $192,000 of EVA, thereby creating wealth for the company and boosting the division's total EVA from $750,000 to $942,000. The garden catalogs option produces EVA of $350,000, thereby generating wealth for the company and further raising the division's total EVA to $1,292,000. Exhibit 3 summarizes the primary difference between ROI and EVA. With ROI (see Panel A), any investment alternative that offers a return less than the cost of capital will not be supported by division managers or the company. In this situation, the ROI measure encourages division managers to exhibit decision making behavior that is congruent with the goals of the company. Similarly, any investment opportunity that offers a return greater than the anticipated ROI will be viewed favorably by division managers and the company. Again, ROI elicits goal-congruent behavior from the division manager. However, any investment alternative that offers a return equal to or greater than the cost of capital, but less than the division's anticipated ROI, will be viewed unfavorably by division managers, despite being viewed as desirable by the company as a whole. The problem with using ROI to reward employee performance in these situations is that managers are penalized, in terms of financial compensation, for making decisions that lower their ROI while increasing the firm's wealth. Accordingly, the manager's conduct may lead to underutilization of available capital that could have earned a return in excess of the company's cost of capital. From the firm's perspective this is viewed as dysfunctional decision making. From the manager's perspective, the over-reliance on ROI as a performance indicator gives her no choice. With EVA (see Exhibit 3, Panel B), goal-congruent behavior is always elicited from division managers. Any investment opportunity with an EVA greater than zero (or a return greater than the cost of capital) will be viewed favorably by division managers and the company. Investment options with an EVA less than zero (or a return less than the cost of capital) will be viewed unfavorably by division managers and the company. Thus, the primary strength of EVA is that it provides a measure of wealth creation that aligns the goals of divisional or plant managers with the goals of the entire company. * Limitations Despite EVA's advantage over ROI, this measure has four limitations that are presented under the following headings: size differences, financial orientation, short-term orientation, and results-orientation. [TABULAR DATA FOR EXHIBIT 3 OMITTED] Size Differences. EVA does not control for size differences across plants or divisions (Hansen & Mowen, 1997; Horngren, et al., 1997). A larger plant or division will tend to have a higher EVA relative to its smaller counterparts. For example, refer to the data in Exhibit 2 and let us assume for a moment that magazine publishing, home repair books, and garden catalogs represent three separate divisions of The Ohio Company with actual (as opposed to projected) results as shown. Using only EVA to compare performance across the three divisions, Exhibit 2 (Panel B) indicates that magazine publishing has been the most successful by generating $750,000 in EVA. However, the garden catalog division could make a valid argument that it was more successful than the magazine publishing division because it more efficiently deployed its assets generating an ROI of 18.75%. The managers of this division could argue that if they were afforded a $15 million asset base they could have generated operating income of $2,812,500 ($15,000,000 x 18.75%). The sole reason garden catalogs' EVA is less than magazine publishings' is due to a size difference in the two divisions' investment bases. Notice, the "catch 22" here. While EVA is more effective than ROI at aligning plant managers' goals with corporate goals, it does not control for size differences across organizational units like ROI does. Financial Orientation. EVA is a computed number that relies on financial accounting methods of revenue realization and expense recognition. If motivated to do so, managers can manipulate these numbers by altering their decision making processes (Horngren, et al., 1997). Three examples will help illustrate this point. First, managers can manipulate the revenue recognized during an accounting period by choosing which customer orders to fill and which to delay. Highly profitable orders may be expedited at the end of the accounting period and shipped to the customers a few weeks before the agreed-upon delivery date, while less profitable orders may be delay and shipped after the end of the accounting period and after the agreed-upon delivery date. The end result of this scenario is a boost to current period EVA and an adverse blow to customer satisfaction and retention. Second, discretionary expenditures can be terminated to boost EVA. For example, an employee training program conducted by an outside consulting firm can be terminated towards the end of an accounting period. The savings in consulting fees resulting from the cancellation reduce the expenses recognized during the current period, thereby increasing EVA, but what about the commitment to workforce training? Third, managers may decide not to replace completely depreciated assets. Keeping the outdated equipment on the accountant's books lowers the asset base and ensures that no depreciation expense charges are recognized, thereby increasing EVA; however, product quality and customer satisfaction may suffer if outdated manufacturing equipment continues to be used. Each of these examples reflects a choice on the part of managers for personal gain over corporate welfare. From the standpoint of the company, these choices are viewed as dysfunctional and perhaps even unethical. From the standpoint of managers, the over-reliance on EVA to evaluate their performance is viewed as dysfunctional. The temptation to manipulate the accounting numbers would be genuine for any manager who knows they dramatically improved their performance in ways that are not immediately reflected in the accountants' ledgers. Nothing demotivates managers faster than being unjustly penalized by a financial measure, such as EVA, that fails to accurately depict their true level of effort and performance. Short-Term Orientation. The intent of a performance measurement system should be to match employees' effort, ingenuity, and accomplishments with their compensation. If a manager conceives of an innovative idea, researches it, organizes it, presents it to superiors, and begins implementing it in the current accounting period, some measure of compensation should be afforded to the manager in the current period for the effort and ingenuity expended. However, that is not how financial measures, such as EVA, work when they are used to evaluate employee performance. EVA overemphasizes the need to generate immediate results; therefore, it creates a disincentive for managers to invest in innovative product or process technologies. After all, every investment in innovation has the same economic profile. The costs or expenses associated with the project are recognized, at least in part, by the accountants immediately. The benefits or revenues associated with the initiatives are not recognized by the accountants until a few years down the road. The net effect for managers investing in innovation is a lower EVA in the current period accompanied by an unsatisfactory pay raise or perhaps even a bypassed promotion, demotion, or layoff. Granted, the possibility exists that innovative ideas may lead to greater pay raises in the future; however, all managers understand "time value of money" concepts and the notion of risk. Money in the pocket today is a certainty and is worth more than the prospect of money earned in the future, which is worth less and is more uncertain. In an influential Harvard Business Review article entitled "Managing Our Way to Economic Decline," the authors state: "Although innovation, the lifeblood of any vital enterprise, is best encouraged by an environment that does not unduly penalize failure, the predictable result of relying too heavily on short-term financial measures - a sort of managerial remote control - is an environment in which no one feels he or she can afford a failure or even a momentary dip in the bottom line" (Hayes & Abernathy, 1980). In an environment of financial control, the risks of innovation exceed the potential rewards. EVA is another form of managerial remote control that forces managers to put undue emphasis on the short-term bottom line. Results Orientation. Over the years, accountants have earned a reputation as the co-workers who arrive on the scene after a period of disappointing performance to "bayonet the wounded" with their historical financial reports. The accountants' reports state the obvious - that performance was less than expected - but they do not help offer solutions to the nonaccounting business managers who are responsible for continuously improving the value delivered to customers. Like its predecessor financial metrics, EVA is guilty of this charge. For example, engineers and operations managers are most interested in taking nonfinancial measures such as yield and throughput and focusing on the root cause drivers of these measures (McKinnon & Bruns, 1993; Johnson & Kaplan, 1987). Statistical process controls may be put in place to help ensure that machine calibrations stay "in control," thereby enhancing yields. Or, activity analyses may be performed in bottleneck operations to identify nonvalue activities that can be eliminated, thereby increasing throughput (Campbell, 1995). The focus is more on process-oriented (nonfinancial) measures than on financial measures. The only financial information potentially useful to engineers and operations managers is disaggregated activity-based cost information that may help in the following ways: (a) create an awareness of the cost associated with performing nonvalue added activities, (b) prioritize continuous improvement initiatives by quantifying the potential savings of competing alternatives, and (c) provide justification for cash outlays by quantifying the savings that may be realized from capital investments (Brinker, 1995). Aggregated, results-oriented financial numbers, such as EVA, that are accumulated at the end of an accounting period do not help point towards the root causes of operational inefficiencies; therefore, these measures offer limited useful information to people charged with the responsibility of managing business processes.

What demotivates you?

Add your answer:

What demotivates or discourages you?