Going into my first round of 400 level economics classes, I wasn't sure what to expect. I had seen previous classes focus a lot on concepts and driving home the importance of understanding each of these concepts. When I put three 400 level classes on my schedule, I certainly believed that they would be the traditional, here's what you need to do type of classes. This economics class was definitely not like the others.
For starters, the topics in the class were much more interesting and practical than the ones in my other classes. For the other classes, concepts and memorizing definitions became the habit. I was flooded constantly with information to remember. In this organizations class, everything felt so applicable, which was evident in the blog posts with recent experiences. As a class, we began to see economics in things we never saw before.
As far as the class structure goes, it was clearly different than any other class. Class time itself certainly placed a focus on understanding and learning the material. Unlike every other lecture we experience, which consists of an hour or longer of boredom that leads to distractions, this class, combining a lecture time and time for discussion, helped the concepts and ideas sink in more, because we participated in them. It was stated at the beginning of the year that we are here to gain human capital, and discussion certainly helped my intrinsic motivation for the class.
Attendance and the soft deadlines are two of the more interesting parts of this class to look at. While bonus points for attendance did incentivize me to come to class a little bit, I often make it a priority to get to class every day. I didn't attend every single class, but the bonus point incentive wasn't a big deal by mid semester. I came because I enjoyed the class more. I am not sure how I feel about the soft deadline policy in this class. I understand the approach from a human error perspective, in that we all miss assignments sometimes, but I think for me, as someone who will procrastinate if given the opportunity, the soft deadlines sometimes hurt me. Since the blog posts weren't due at a specific time, I often put them off to a later time because I knew I could do so. If the deadline was a set time, I think I would have done them all on Friday.
While I struggled at times with the excel homework, I did enjoy that part of the class. There wasn't too much match involved that made it unbearable. Plus, the explanation after each problem was very helpful. The ability to understand the problem and the graphs theoretically was important to me, otherwise I was sometimes staring at equations that I didn't totally understand. When it came to time spent, it was usually an hour or two.
Despite my stating above that I procrastinated on the blog posts at times, they were the most interesting part of the class for me. I enjoyed thinking about the concepts we learned and applying them to work scenarios. I spent an hour or so preparing what I wanted to say, and then proceeded to form the posts as I structured them. I enjoyed talking about my time at the sports website I worked at, because that is something I am passionate about doing and it was cool to see the economic and organizational view points in those situations.
Overall, I did enjoy this class. I think there are things, because of the way they were presented, that I will remember and continue to see in my work and in organizations. I am sure there will be times where I send emails because something I remember from this class will appear to me.
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Monday, December 4, 2017
Principal-Agent Triangle Model
The principal-agent model exists all over in the workplace. From insurance, which was discussed in class, to retail stores, that model is everywhere. However, not all principal-agent models are bilateral. Some models contain one agent and two principals, creating a triangle of association.
I haven't worked in too many jobs, as my recent posts show. Most of my work experience and interaction come from online interactions with people and communication over certain mediums. But, for an example of a principal-agent triangle model, I turn to my experience working in a factory, which I have also discussed before.
In my first year at the factory, I worked with a few people who went to my high school. We would all work in the same area, except for when one of us was on the machine. The machine in the factory made certain parts that went way faster than if any human put them together individually. When it comes to the machine, it had three different parts, each that required one person to manage it.
Our managers decided that even thought we were new, we should try to master one part of the machine so that more of the experienced workers could handle other tasks. So, one week, they decided to throw us on the machine. This created a conflict of expectations, which ties in to the principal-agent theory.
For this machine, a decent learning curve exists. Even though it is a very repetitive task, the speed of the machine makes it tough to keep up at first. The machine had six slots that would rotate around a circle, and three parts needed to be inserted in certain spots so the machine could pick them up and put them together. Our manager decided to rotate us through the second part, which consisted of us picking up two pieces and putting them in the right spot to get the machine to pick them up.
From the jump, I knew there would be a conflict of expectation. The other two workers assumed that we would be able to keep up enough to consistently churn out plenty of these parts and have the machine stop minimally. However, that was not the case. Early on, when we worked at that spot, the machine would stop constantly. It was evident that the other workers were frustrated with our work, while the managers understood it would take time.
After a couple weeks of continuing struggle to get a hang of the machine, one of the workers went to the managers and suggested that we move to a different part of the machine and move one of there more experienced workers back to the part we were working on. While the managers were hesitant at first, they eventually agreed and placed us on the easy part at times while also working in certain times where a couple of us would work the second station.
This compromise ties in with what we have talked about with team production, and with the paper my team analyzed. The idea is to get maximum efficiency out of your workers, and team production is the best way to gain that efficiency. Also, in the situation with the machine, every worker monitors one another and how efficient and productive they are during that time.
I haven't worked in too many jobs, as my recent posts show. Most of my work experience and interaction come from online interactions with people and communication over certain mediums. But, for an example of a principal-agent triangle model, I turn to my experience working in a factory, which I have also discussed before.
In my first year at the factory, I worked with a few people who went to my high school. We would all work in the same area, except for when one of us was on the machine. The machine in the factory made certain parts that went way faster than if any human put them together individually. When it comes to the machine, it had three different parts, each that required one person to manage it.
Our managers decided that even thought we were new, we should try to master one part of the machine so that more of the experienced workers could handle other tasks. So, one week, they decided to throw us on the machine. This created a conflict of expectations, which ties in to the principal-agent theory.
For this machine, a decent learning curve exists. Even though it is a very repetitive task, the speed of the machine makes it tough to keep up at first. The machine had six slots that would rotate around a circle, and three parts needed to be inserted in certain spots so the machine could pick them up and put them together. Our manager decided to rotate us through the second part, which consisted of us picking up two pieces and putting them in the right spot to get the machine to pick them up.
From the jump, I knew there would be a conflict of expectation. The other two workers assumed that we would be able to keep up enough to consistently churn out plenty of these parts and have the machine stop minimally. However, that was not the case. Early on, when we worked at that spot, the machine would stop constantly. It was evident that the other workers were frustrated with our work, while the managers understood it would take time.
After a couple weeks of continuing struggle to get a hang of the machine, one of the workers went to the managers and suggested that we move to a different part of the machine and move one of there more experienced workers back to the part we were working on. While the managers were hesitant at first, they eventually agreed and placed us on the easy part at times while also working in certain times where a couple of us would work the second station.
This compromise ties in with what we have talked about with team production, and with the paper my team analyzed. The idea is to get maximum efficiency out of your workers, and team production is the best way to gain that efficiency. Also, in the situation with the machine, every worker monitors one another and how efficient and productive they are during that time.
Friday, November 10, 2017
Conflict In The Workplace
Conflict in the workplace wasn't really something I dealt with at the factory I worked at for three straight summers. The people there were accommodating, worked together, and kept the business running efficient. However, as I have mentioned in previous posts, cover32 was not and still isn't a well functioning media company. The management was not good previously, and a lot of conflict arose from that. Eventually, the managing editors got into some heated conversations about issues with the site.
Over the summer, there was a viewers issue. The NFL isn't as popular in the summer as it is when it is active in the fall and winter months. Many writers were concerned with this.
This person, let's call him Travis, had a different idea of how he wanted things to run at cover32. He was the editor for one of the teams at the time and eventually rose to a national editor role. Over the summer, the schedule was being set up for the national writers. Travis had other ideas about what the direction of the company could look like. He was very into the media itself and how ratings looked at the sports media giants. So, he decided that a podcast network should be added because more people were gravitating towards podcasts and not just random little stories about every team around the league.
However, many managing editors felt that the company was just fine how it was. Those guys felt that they did their work, got the revenue, and were good to go. Also, they seemed very opposed to change and evolution.
So, Travis brought up the changes. Most were on board with the podcast network. But, Travis brought up other things that no one knew about in the process. He felt that less posts and more radio talk was the answer to the issues with viewers and that hot takes (out there statements and analysis) were the face of the future.
Many editors were not on board here. This brought Travis into first model of action from Argyris and Schon's theories for action. Travis definitely believed with the negative response and tension that followed that the organization was volatile and he had to look out for himself. He approached some of us who were more on the fence and okay with the changes and tried to make us bring an offensive towards those who were not fans of the decision. This was his private solution, to pressure the others using those who weren't against him. He believed that more people could get the editors on the other side to change over to his side. He truly believed that the others were the problem this company faced and their lack of evolution would doom the company.
He then took the final steps of the first model of action. He intensified pressure to change and began using personal attacks in public areas. One of those areas was the group email. He called out specific people and that they were a hazard to the company. Eventually, with a podcast network losing steam and his lack of power to fully change the site, Travis left cover32 in the late summer to start his own site.
One way that this could have been avoided is a stronger management. Our manager, let's call him Tyler, was very laid back and avoided conflict at all times. He finally said something after the personal attacks in the group email, but never took sides other than then. If he had addressed the problems early on, the volatile situation could have been handled well before things got out of hand.
Over the summer, there was a viewers issue. The NFL isn't as popular in the summer as it is when it is active in the fall and winter months. Many writers were concerned with this.
This person, let's call him Travis, had a different idea of how he wanted things to run at cover32. He was the editor for one of the teams at the time and eventually rose to a national editor role. Over the summer, the schedule was being set up for the national writers. Travis had other ideas about what the direction of the company could look like. He was very into the media itself and how ratings looked at the sports media giants. So, he decided that a podcast network should be added because more people were gravitating towards podcasts and not just random little stories about every team around the league.
However, many managing editors felt that the company was just fine how it was. Those guys felt that they did their work, got the revenue, and were good to go. Also, they seemed very opposed to change and evolution.
So, Travis brought up the changes. Most were on board with the podcast network. But, Travis brought up other things that no one knew about in the process. He felt that less posts and more radio talk was the answer to the issues with viewers and that hot takes (out there statements and analysis) were the face of the future.
Many editors were not on board here. This brought Travis into first model of action from Argyris and Schon's theories for action. Travis definitely believed with the negative response and tension that followed that the organization was volatile and he had to look out for himself. He approached some of us who were more on the fence and okay with the changes and tried to make us bring an offensive towards those who were not fans of the decision. This was his private solution, to pressure the others using those who weren't against him. He believed that more people could get the editors on the other side to change over to his side. He truly believed that the others were the problem this company faced and their lack of evolution would doom the company.
He then took the final steps of the first model of action. He intensified pressure to change and began using personal attacks in public areas. One of those areas was the group email. He called out specific people and that they were a hazard to the company. Eventually, with a podcast network losing steam and his lack of power to fully change the site, Travis left cover32 in the late summer to start his own site.
One way that this could have been avoided is a stronger management. Our manager, let's call him Tyler, was very laid back and avoided conflict at all times. He finally said something after the personal attacks in the group email, but never took sides other than then. If he had addressed the problems early on, the volatile situation could have been handled well before things got out of hand.
Saturday, November 4, 2017
Team Production With Gift Exchange
Earlier this semester I talked a lot about a website I am a part of that had poor management and displayed some forms of opportunism. While that website is getting better, the other website I write for does a much better job and applies to these concepts. Rotoden puts in a lot better work and they coordinate things much better than cover32.
Overall, Rotoden certainly adopts the ideas of team production and a pseudo gift exchange model. The group coordinates with multiple writers and editors across every sport to put together a sports site made for the fans. Everyone puts in work in every category so that there is a continuous flow of views from all the fan demographics. The gift exchange in this case revolves around giving gifts in the form of articles in hopes to receive future rewards like an editor position or a weekly column.
This website relates well to the articles in the New York Times. The first article about the "sharing the spoils" idea and the marbles works out well. If a writer or editor needs help getting their articles out to the public, the team steps up and shares it any way they can. Everyone wants to succeed and wants to see everyone around them succeed. The idea of all members working hard and all members receiving benefit works in this way. The more views every article can get, the more everyone will eventually receive. As the article describes, collaboration is the key to "sharing the spoils". If everyone didn't collaborate, conflict could arise and the company wouldn't run as well as it does.
The second article, which describes the nature of "that's not fair!" and ways to (economically) think about solving this issue, works perfectly with Rotoden. Everyone in the sports writing industry certainly wants more and wants to be at the top, but the idea of scratching other's backs to build connections is important. While everyone certainly wants more, helping others will certainly influence them to help you in the future should you need it. The ideas brought up certainly work in this situation. Everyone can choose what they want to cover, which comes down to personal preferences. If you don't get what you want, the incentive to work hard still exists. Plus, being well rounded helps in the industry. If everyone helps to push articles out, traffic will increase and will benefit you along with others. These concepts are important to a well functioning site.
The final article discusses how people are choosing to act economically nowadays instead of looking at things morally. If everyone retweets, likes, and shares each other's posts, things run smoothly. But, there are always people who will act opportunistically and free ride in the situation. Things like that lead to the growing problem in the world that everyone assumes a person is selfish. Acting in a group's interest will only strengthen ties within the group and bring it closer together. Eliminating the idea of free riding and not helping others is certainly a part of what makes Rotoden a promising website.
Overall, Rotoden certainly adopts the ideas of team production and a pseudo gift exchange model. The group coordinates with multiple writers and editors across every sport to put together a sports site made for the fans. Everyone puts in work in every category so that there is a continuous flow of views from all the fan demographics. The gift exchange in this case revolves around giving gifts in the form of articles in hopes to receive future rewards like an editor position or a weekly column.
This website relates well to the articles in the New York Times. The first article about the "sharing the spoils" idea and the marbles works out well. If a writer or editor needs help getting their articles out to the public, the team steps up and shares it any way they can. Everyone wants to succeed and wants to see everyone around them succeed. The idea of all members working hard and all members receiving benefit works in this way. The more views every article can get, the more everyone will eventually receive. As the article describes, collaboration is the key to "sharing the spoils". If everyone didn't collaborate, conflict could arise and the company wouldn't run as well as it does.
The second article, which describes the nature of "that's not fair!" and ways to (economically) think about solving this issue, works perfectly with Rotoden. Everyone in the sports writing industry certainly wants more and wants to be at the top, but the idea of scratching other's backs to build connections is important. While everyone certainly wants more, helping others will certainly influence them to help you in the future should you need it. The ideas brought up certainly work in this situation. Everyone can choose what they want to cover, which comes down to personal preferences. If you don't get what you want, the incentive to work hard still exists. Plus, being well rounded helps in the industry. If everyone helps to push articles out, traffic will increase and will benefit you along with others. These concepts are important to a well functioning site.
The final article discusses how people are choosing to act economically nowadays instead of looking at things morally. If everyone retweets, likes, and shares each other's posts, things run smoothly. But, there are always people who will act opportunistically and free ride in the situation. Things like that lead to the growing problem in the world that everyone assumes a person is selfish. Acting in a group's interest will only strengthen ties within the group and bring it closer together. Eliminating the idea of free riding and not helping others is certainly a part of what makes Rotoden a promising website.
Friday, October 20, 2017
Decision Making and Income Risk
Coming in as a freshman, my parents had always pushed engineering as the path to take. All the research has shown that engineers continue to be in high demand out of college, so the path made sense. However, I really wasn't the biggest fan of engineering, only because I wanted to do computer science and not waste my time in chemistry, physics, and advanced math classes. However, I just stuck with it for a while because any other option seemed like a bigger risk and wouldn't guarantee me a job out of college.
However, eventually, engineering and I just didn't click and I wound up looking elsewhere at the university. Business wouldn't work because applying as a freshman was the way in. I even seriously considered moving colleges last winter because of how my classes turned out. Luckily, all of my schooling didn't go completely to waste and I was able to switch to a major that was more interesting for me and carried less of a burden as far as intrinsic motivation goes. Economics has been a great spot for me. Plus, as I've done research, I see the market need for economics majors is quite competitive with the top majors out of college. So, switching to economics really didn't decrease risk from a starting-out income perspective.
Something I have also always been interested in is sports writing and sports analysis. This is evident in my recent blog posts, but I am currently doing work for a few websites in the sports journalism game. I knew coming to college and pursuing a journalism major would put great risk on income out of college. ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and other companies have laid off workers over the past year which is concerning for people in the field and future employees in the field. I definitely would like to pursue a career in it, but I am not decreasing income risk by pursuing it on the side. If an opportunity opened up, I would be willing to take the risk knowing I have the economics degree in my back pocket should the market take a hit and I would lose my job.
With an economics major, a CS minor, and sports writing on the side, I am setting myself up well and covering many bases. My unique diversity in experience and knowledge certainly will come in handy down the road.
As far as tuition and debt goes, my parents worked extremely hard to be able to pay for my college. However, after four years of payment I am on my own for paying. So, with an extra semester, I will accumulate a small amount of debt. Sticking with the economics major is important because of where I will stand after I graduate. I will likely not pursue something in journalism until that debt is paid off.
Over the past few summers, I worked at a factory near my hometown that made parts for windows and sliding glass doors. This has helped me even though I am not looking to be in a position like that. That job has showed me that working hard and getting a degree that limits income risk is important so that I am not searching for a job for very long after I graduate and I end up working somewhere not related to my major or my interests. I also interned a bit with my dad over this past summer. He is an independent computer consultant who goes to clients all around the country and finds work there. I helped him with lower level coding and SQL over the summer, which only widens my base of knowledge in my computer science minor. Getting hands on experience opens the door for internships in computer science but also for economics in those same organizations due to connections I am lucky to have. Those possible internships could help reduce my income risk right out of college.
Unfortunately, I haven't had a sibling go through what I am going through yet. I am the oldest in the family. However, learning from my parents and their route in college has showed me that practicality in a major will certainly reduce income risk because of the demand for positions in those more practical fields.
My goal going forward is to have an internship for summer of 2018. I am not limiting myself to any single field but will pursue one in all of my interests. Should I intern for a sports journalism company, great. If it's in economics or computer science, even better. Having a lot of bases covered certainly helps my odds and will help in the future.
However, eventually, engineering and I just didn't click and I wound up looking elsewhere at the university. Business wouldn't work because applying as a freshman was the way in. I even seriously considered moving colleges last winter because of how my classes turned out. Luckily, all of my schooling didn't go completely to waste and I was able to switch to a major that was more interesting for me and carried less of a burden as far as intrinsic motivation goes. Economics has been a great spot for me. Plus, as I've done research, I see the market need for economics majors is quite competitive with the top majors out of college. So, switching to economics really didn't decrease risk from a starting-out income perspective.
Something I have also always been interested in is sports writing and sports analysis. This is evident in my recent blog posts, but I am currently doing work for a few websites in the sports journalism game. I knew coming to college and pursuing a journalism major would put great risk on income out of college. ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and other companies have laid off workers over the past year which is concerning for people in the field and future employees in the field. I definitely would like to pursue a career in it, but I am not decreasing income risk by pursuing it on the side. If an opportunity opened up, I would be willing to take the risk knowing I have the economics degree in my back pocket should the market take a hit and I would lose my job.
With an economics major, a CS minor, and sports writing on the side, I am setting myself up well and covering many bases. My unique diversity in experience and knowledge certainly will come in handy down the road.
As far as tuition and debt goes, my parents worked extremely hard to be able to pay for my college. However, after four years of payment I am on my own for paying. So, with an extra semester, I will accumulate a small amount of debt. Sticking with the economics major is important because of where I will stand after I graduate. I will likely not pursue something in journalism until that debt is paid off.
Over the past few summers, I worked at a factory near my hometown that made parts for windows and sliding glass doors. This has helped me even though I am not looking to be in a position like that. That job has showed me that working hard and getting a degree that limits income risk is important so that I am not searching for a job for very long after I graduate and I end up working somewhere not related to my major or my interests. I also interned a bit with my dad over this past summer. He is an independent computer consultant who goes to clients all around the country and finds work there. I helped him with lower level coding and SQL over the summer, which only widens my base of knowledge in my computer science minor. Getting hands on experience opens the door for internships in computer science but also for economics in those same organizations due to connections I am lucky to have. Those possible internships could help reduce my income risk right out of college.
Unfortunately, I haven't had a sibling go through what I am going through yet. I am the oldest in the family. However, learning from my parents and their route in college has showed me that practicality in a major will certainly reduce income risk because of the demand for positions in those more practical fields.
My goal going forward is to have an internship for summer of 2018. I am not limiting myself to any single field but will pursue one in all of my interests. Should I intern for a sports journalism company, great. If it's in economics or computer science, even better. Having a lot of bases covered certainly helps my odds and will help in the future.
Friday, October 13, 2017
Connecting The Dots
As I go back through my posts thus far, I see a few common themes. I did write about a couple different organizations in my first few posts. I wrote about a media company that I currently am working with and their issues with transaction costs and opportunism. I also discussed my summer work in years past and the organization of the team that the company put together. The biggest theme to take away from the posts themselves thus far is the idea of transaction costs. We see the final product of corporations, but we don't see all the interior costs that go on behind the scenes. The ideas of commitment and information come into play with those transaction costs, and they are something that seems to be in play with the class going forward.
The bigger picture with all of these posts comes down to management as a whole and the idea of identifying inefficiency in organizations. As we have discussed in class, it's more interesting to discuss the problems that arise in organizations rather than studying the well-functioning ones. Discussing transaction costs, opportunism, organization, and the idea of Illinibucks has showed me the value of good leadership and management. If a company does not have an effective leader at the top, the company can suffer in a multitude of ways. These past few posts have ultimately shown that.
As far as my process goes, I think that I have definitely evolved through the first few weeks. I actually have enjoyed talking about my own experiences and was definitely able to draw a lot on the transaction cost post. With the turmoil going on there over the summer, it really helped out my writing and let me expound on multiple parts of the issues with transaction costs. With opportunism being everywhere, it was easier to come up with examples. The same goes for the organization of teams in the following post.
However, I think it was more difficult for me to do the hypothetical. Maybe it is because I am not drawing as much from the book as I do from discussing things in class. If so, I need to put more energy into reading the books and taking away the major concepts and applying them to hypothetical situations.
Going forward, I would like to see a mix of hypothetical prompts and prompts that you can draw experiences from. I definitely like drawing from my own experiences because it lets you see the economics of an organization from your own eyes and opens them. That helps you look for the concepts and issues in organizations when you are actually in them. Hypotheticals are also good to have because they test your knowledge and application of the concepts. I am excited for this going forward.
The bigger picture with all of these posts comes down to management as a whole and the idea of identifying inefficiency in organizations. As we have discussed in class, it's more interesting to discuss the problems that arise in organizations rather than studying the well-functioning ones. Discussing transaction costs, opportunism, organization, and the idea of Illinibucks has showed me the value of good leadership and management. If a company does not have an effective leader at the top, the company can suffer in a multitude of ways. These past few posts have ultimately shown that.
As far as my process goes, I think that I have definitely evolved through the first few weeks. I actually have enjoyed talking about my own experiences and was definitely able to draw a lot on the transaction cost post. With the turmoil going on there over the summer, it really helped out my writing and let me expound on multiple parts of the issues with transaction costs. With opportunism being everywhere, it was easier to come up with examples. The same goes for the organization of teams in the following post.
However, I think it was more difficult for me to do the hypothetical. Maybe it is because I am not drawing as much from the book as I do from discussing things in class. If so, I need to put more energy into reading the books and taking away the major concepts and applying them to hypothetical situations.
Going forward, I would like to see a mix of hypothetical prompts and prompts that you can draw experiences from. I definitely like drawing from my own experiences because it lets you see the economics of an organization from your own eyes and opens them. That helps you look for the concepts and issues in organizations when you are actually in them. Hypotheticals are also good to have because they test your knowledge and application of the concepts. I am excited for this going forward.
Friday, October 6, 2017
A New Illinibucks Program
Just for kicks, let's say that the University of Illinois is planning on starting an "Illinibucks" program for 2018. The idea of this is quite interesting. Obviously, it is assumed that the university will set the price of these, and that the price will ultimately come down to the quantity that is demanded by students enrolled at the university.
These Illinibucks could be used for a multitude of things. For one, freshmen and sophomores would love nothing more than to use their Illinibucks to move up in priority to select classes. Some class, such as ones in computer science and business, are often very difficult to get into and aren't a guarantee no matter when you sign up.
Another big use for the Illinibucks could come from returning students picking their housing for the next year. If a sophomore wants to be at the Ikenberry commons in the new dorms, or they want to be at ISR near the engineering library. Having those bucks could get them priority for picking dorms.
Also, advising appointments can be pretty hard to get at the beginning of the semester and during the class selection period. Using Illinibucks to reserve a spot with an advisor would be beneficial to students trying to get into classes along with trying to work their schedule for the upcoming semester.
Another probable use would be for food. Jumping the lines to get food in a pinch would be a nice option for students who are in a rush for classes or who need to get food early because of evening commitments.
Another one that may not be as obvious is reserving space on the turf fields. Often, it's hard to find spots to practice or just be able to play sports. During the early autumn months, being able to reserve time to play football, soccer, volleyball, or even some softball would be a great add on for some who enjoy staying active.
The allocation of Illinibucks is the interesting concept in all of this. Giving out the same amount to each student wouldn't really fix any of the issues above. So, how does that happen? You add incentives in order to spike interest in the Illinibucks and being able to move up and reserve spots for the listed items above. One of the easiest ways to create incentives would be to use GPA as a determinant. If students want the Illinibucks, the GPA incentive would create intrinsic motivation for students to study harder and would possibly raise the average GPA across the board at the university. Creating that competition for those incentives would surely benefit students and faculty in certain ways. However, there could be an issue with grades being a determinant. Removing the enjoyment of your major could put some students in a GPA frenzy and possibly ruin their experience here. It surely wouldn't affect too many students, but it is something to consider here.
Determining the price of these Illinibucks would certainly be a challenge. You need to find the right price in order to make the bucks scarce and create the competition for those incentives. Setting a low price would not work well. The idea of moving up for classes wouldn't make sense because if prices were low, everyone would have a similar amount and moving up wouldn't help a student. However, if the price is high, then students would treat them as scarce resources and would use them sparingly. If a student really needed to reserve an advisor meeting or really wanted to register for a certain class, the high price would turn off the opportunity for some students while other would use them when a big need arises. The amount of usage would also be very low with high prices, as students would hold on to them and use them in a desperate situation. High prices also could create a market where students trade those Illinibucks for other necessities.
These Illinibucks could be used for a multitude of things. For one, freshmen and sophomores would love nothing more than to use their Illinibucks to move up in priority to select classes. Some class, such as ones in computer science and business, are often very difficult to get into and aren't a guarantee no matter when you sign up.
Another big use for the Illinibucks could come from returning students picking their housing for the next year. If a sophomore wants to be at the Ikenberry commons in the new dorms, or they want to be at ISR near the engineering library. Having those bucks could get them priority for picking dorms.
Also, advising appointments can be pretty hard to get at the beginning of the semester and during the class selection period. Using Illinibucks to reserve a spot with an advisor would be beneficial to students trying to get into classes along with trying to work their schedule for the upcoming semester.
Another probable use would be for food. Jumping the lines to get food in a pinch would be a nice option for students who are in a rush for classes or who need to get food early because of evening commitments.
Another one that may not be as obvious is reserving space on the turf fields. Often, it's hard to find spots to practice or just be able to play sports. During the early autumn months, being able to reserve time to play football, soccer, volleyball, or even some softball would be a great add on for some who enjoy staying active.
The allocation of Illinibucks is the interesting concept in all of this. Giving out the same amount to each student wouldn't really fix any of the issues above. So, how does that happen? You add incentives in order to spike interest in the Illinibucks and being able to move up and reserve spots for the listed items above. One of the easiest ways to create incentives would be to use GPA as a determinant. If students want the Illinibucks, the GPA incentive would create intrinsic motivation for students to study harder and would possibly raise the average GPA across the board at the university. Creating that competition for those incentives would surely benefit students and faculty in certain ways. However, there could be an issue with grades being a determinant. Removing the enjoyment of your major could put some students in a GPA frenzy and possibly ruin their experience here. It surely wouldn't affect too many students, but it is something to consider here.
Determining the price of these Illinibucks would certainly be a challenge. You need to find the right price in order to make the bucks scarce and create the competition for those incentives. Setting a low price would not work well. The idea of moving up for classes wouldn't make sense because if prices were low, everyone would have a similar amount and moving up wouldn't help a student. However, if the price is high, then students would treat them as scarce resources and would use them sparingly. If a student really needed to reserve an advisor meeting or really wanted to register for a certain class, the high price would turn off the opportunity for some students while other would use them when a big need arises. The amount of usage would also be very low with high prices, as students would hold on to them and use them in a desperate situation. High prices also could create a market where students trade those Illinibucks for other necessities.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
Team Organization
In the three summers previous, I worked at a small factory near where I lived. This factory produced a number of different products involving windows and sliding glass doors. I simply worked putting parts together and sometimes on this machine that would assemble a part in three steps.
While the work was often boring, this company surely had a successful team in place. It definitely brought about some of the simple structures described in Bolman and Deal. When I started there three years ago in the summer, there was a very hierarchical structure in place. The two guys at the top, who started the company, reported to the middle manager, who happened to be one guy's daugher, who then set us up with what we would be doing during the day. The work could consist of sitting in a desk and putting parts together all day.
It also could mean working on one of the two machines that was set up for these certain parts to make. They were the most demanded products, so two teams of three would sit on the machine and run it to make the parts. This part of the day to day work would fit more with the circle structure. Each person would deal with the other two in different ways. I was often on housing, which was the "shell" of the product. I put the pieces on a belt that would move them up to be put in the two slots rotating around the machine. Then, the person to my left would have the inner part which consisted of springs. They needed to make sure that two of those parts would be sitting in the right spot for the machine to pick them up. Then, the same would happen with the last part, the "cover". It was much like the previous step in that two needed to be ready to be picked up. Also, I was in charge of catching the bad parts before they ended up in the boxes that would be packaged. So, the person in charge of the machine who applied the third part would trust me to see and catch the bad parts.
However, things began to change in my third summer there. They started adding on more people for the desk jobs and others to take calls, manage inventory, and lay out the product scheduling for the week. The person who used to be the middle manager earlier in my time there moved over to head the inventory and product scheduling part of the business. Then, for us working in the factory to put parts together and for the small group of guys working the plastics machines, a new guy was put in charge to manage that. So, over time, a dual authority started to take shape at the company.
From the perspective of Katzenbach and Smith, the team structure was set up well. One of the big parts of the company was that there was a manageable size. Overall, with two guys at the top, and the dual managers of each section, the entire company totaled 18 people. Some people would work the machine for parts. Other would put parts together in desk chairs. And, the group making the parts with the plastics machines would continue to make the products needed.
The other part of Katzenbach and Smith that applied to this workplace is the idea of being versatile. Most of the workers were able to perform more than one task and could be helping the company in multiple ways. If one or two workers are unable to show up, other workers could take their place in certain spot. Many people could do multiple spots on the machine, which was important because some of the people didn't work every day of the week.
While the work was often boring, this company surely had a successful team in place. It definitely brought about some of the simple structures described in Bolman and Deal. When I started there three years ago in the summer, there was a very hierarchical structure in place. The two guys at the top, who started the company, reported to the middle manager, who happened to be one guy's daugher, who then set us up with what we would be doing during the day. The work could consist of sitting in a desk and putting parts together all day.
It also could mean working on one of the two machines that was set up for these certain parts to make. They were the most demanded products, so two teams of three would sit on the machine and run it to make the parts. This part of the day to day work would fit more with the circle structure. Each person would deal with the other two in different ways. I was often on housing, which was the "shell" of the product. I put the pieces on a belt that would move them up to be put in the two slots rotating around the machine. Then, the person to my left would have the inner part which consisted of springs. They needed to make sure that two of those parts would be sitting in the right spot for the machine to pick them up. Then, the same would happen with the last part, the "cover". It was much like the previous step in that two needed to be ready to be picked up. Also, I was in charge of catching the bad parts before they ended up in the boxes that would be packaged. So, the person in charge of the machine who applied the third part would trust me to see and catch the bad parts.
However, things began to change in my third summer there. They started adding on more people for the desk jobs and others to take calls, manage inventory, and lay out the product scheduling for the week. The person who used to be the middle manager earlier in my time there moved over to head the inventory and product scheduling part of the business. Then, for us working in the factory to put parts together and for the small group of guys working the plastics machines, a new guy was put in charge to manage that. So, over time, a dual authority started to take shape at the company.
From the perspective of Katzenbach and Smith, the team structure was set up well. One of the big parts of the company was that there was a manageable size. Overall, with two guys at the top, and the dual managers of each section, the entire company totaled 18 people. Some people would work the machine for parts. Other would put parts together in desk chairs. And, the group making the parts with the plastics machines would continue to make the products needed.
The other part of Katzenbach and Smith that applied to this workplace is the idea of being versatile. Most of the workers were able to perform more than one task and could be helping the company in multiple ways. If one or two workers are unable to show up, other workers could take their place in certain spot. Many people could do multiple spots on the machine, which was important because some of the people didn't work every day of the week.
Saturday, September 23, 2017
Opportunism Is Everywhere
When it comes to the concept of opportunism, it shows up in areas where we all wouldn't think it would. Opportunism is defined as achieving some sort of gain at the expense of others. Those effects can be social and even monetary.
I have previously discussed my opportunity to write for this website called cover32. I discussed a lot about transaction costs and the issues with that last week. However, opportunism also exists in this company, and that opportunism contributed to the management change.
The top management, which included the owner and editor-in-chief, put a system in place where the team editors would receive revenue. However, a condition was placed in that revenue that the editors (including myself) did not know about. The checks would be cut to editors once their revenue gained for the site surpassed 100 dollars.
There was also a catch involved. While the revenue was certainly based on clicks, the amount of clicks needed to reach a substantial amount of revenue per month was nearly impossible to reach. So, while the top of management received a good amount for the work we did, we weren't receiving any money. The appointed national co-editors even relayed to me that the way the system was set up, no one was really going to reach that total and ever get paid. This act by the very top to implement a system to taking in revenue without compensating editors is an act of opportunism. It hurts the editors in that they aren't getting any piece of the revenue pie they are working for.
There are a couple other examples of opportunism in this company. The national writing team (assembled over the summer) had a bunch of assignments to keep the football interest going. One of the people in this group used resources as a part of opportunism. He plagiarized a post from somewhere else for a summer assignment. That opportunism exploited the hard work of another and hurt the reputation of our website all for personal gain.
Another potential opportunity for this exists for us editors every day. Every editor has writers under them, which gives them a sort of power. Since the editors receive emails from writers and put them on to the website, it would be easy for the editors to pass off the work as their own to gain power and potentially move up in the company. Luckily, that type of opportunistic actions has not occurred since I have been on staff.
Since this sort of relates to what we cover at the site, I wanted to also talk about this event as opportunistic. As those who follow the NFL know, Hurricane Irma brought flooding and wind damage to the state of Florida. It did so during week one of the NFL season. The issue with the hurricane was that the Buccaneers and Dolphins were supposed to play in Miami during that first week. With the path of the storm known before landfall, the NFL had options. They could play the game before the scheduled time, or they could move the game to a neutral site and play there. Many options were open for a relocated game, such as Atlanta and Charlotte, as the Falcons and Panthers were both on the road to start their seasons. Instead of moving the game to a neutral site, the NFL decided to move the game to week 11, since both the Bucs and Dolphins had a bye then.
This action has multiple consequences and perfectly displays opportunism. The first question is where the gain lies in doing this. If the NFL were to relocate to a neutral site, they would need to sell tickets. The tickets would most likely have come at a lower price than where the game was originally scheduled, which would decrease revenue for that game. The other big issue relies in player safety. Player safety has been an important subject for the NFL recently, but it clearly didn't matter in this decision. Now, the Dolphins and Bucs both have to play 16 games in a row. Playing that many in a row without a bye dramatically increases the risk for injury, and puts a major dent in the player safety that has been pushed lately. The opportunistic actions here clearly reside in the decision of the owners in that they wanted the full revenue from that game, and are willing to sacrifice player safety for that money.
The closer we look, the more we can see opportunism all around us in our lives.
I have previously discussed my opportunity to write for this website called cover32. I discussed a lot about transaction costs and the issues with that last week. However, opportunism also exists in this company, and that opportunism contributed to the management change.
The top management, which included the owner and editor-in-chief, put a system in place where the team editors would receive revenue. However, a condition was placed in that revenue that the editors (including myself) did not know about. The checks would be cut to editors once their revenue gained for the site surpassed 100 dollars.
There was also a catch involved. While the revenue was certainly based on clicks, the amount of clicks needed to reach a substantial amount of revenue per month was nearly impossible to reach. So, while the top of management received a good amount for the work we did, we weren't receiving any money. The appointed national co-editors even relayed to me that the way the system was set up, no one was really going to reach that total and ever get paid. This act by the very top to implement a system to taking in revenue without compensating editors is an act of opportunism. It hurts the editors in that they aren't getting any piece of the revenue pie they are working for.
There are a couple other examples of opportunism in this company. The national writing team (assembled over the summer) had a bunch of assignments to keep the football interest going. One of the people in this group used resources as a part of opportunism. He plagiarized a post from somewhere else for a summer assignment. That opportunism exploited the hard work of another and hurt the reputation of our website all for personal gain.
Another potential opportunity for this exists for us editors every day. Every editor has writers under them, which gives them a sort of power. Since the editors receive emails from writers and put them on to the website, it would be easy for the editors to pass off the work as their own to gain power and potentially move up in the company. Luckily, that type of opportunistic actions has not occurred since I have been on staff.
Since this sort of relates to what we cover at the site, I wanted to also talk about this event as opportunistic. As those who follow the NFL know, Hurricane Irma brought flooding and wind damage to the state of Florida. It did so during week one of the NFL season. The issue with the hurricane was that the Buccaneers and Dolphins were supposed to play in Miami during that first week. With the path of the storm known before landfall, the NFL had options. They could play the game before the scheduled time, or they could move the game to a neutral site and play there. Many options were open for a relocated game, such as Atlanta and Charlotte, as the Falcons and Panthers were both on the road to start their seasons. Instead of moving the game to a neutral site, the NFL decided to move the game to week 11, since both the Bucs and Dolphins had a bye then.
This action has multiple consequences and perfectly displays opportunism. The first question is where the gain lies in doing this. If the NFL were to relocate to a neutral site, they would need to sell tickets. The tickets would most likely have come at a lower price than where the game was originally scheduled, which would decrease revenue for that game. The other big issue relies in player safety. Player safety has been an important subject for the NFL recently, but it clearly didn't matter in this decision. Now, the Dolphins and Bucs both have to play 16 games in a row. Playing that many in a row without a bye dramatically increases the risk for injury, and puts a major dent in the player safety that has been pushed lately. The opportunistic actions here clearly reside in the decision of the owners in that they wanted the full revenue from that game, and are willing to sacrifice player safety for that money.
The closer we look, the more we can see opportunism all around us in our lives.
Saturday, September 16, 2017
Organization and Transaction Costs
While I have not really been a part of RSOs on campus in my time at the University of Illinois, I have worked in an organization. In the spring, I began working at an NFL-centered website called cover32.
cover32 has a hierarchical structure just like any other sports writing site. The owner and the editor-in-chief are at the top of the structure. The editor-in-chief carries out the owner's wishes and vision for the website. Underneath the editor-in-chief sit two national co-editors. Basically, these editors take care of national stories (stories about the NFL in its entirety) and are in direct contact with the national writing team that they assembled. Directly under the national editors lie the managing editors of all 32 NFL teams. Each editor is responsible for the writers and contributors on their team staff, and getting posts out not only from themselves but from their team of writers as well. Obviously, last but not least, the writers sit under the editors and are in direct contact with them about their team's writing schedule.
This structure, while standard, had some issues involving transaction costs. The goal at cover32 is to efficiently provide information to NFL fans and readers and to raise some revenue in the process. Those goods and services are part of the transaction. However, the previous editor-in-chief struggled with the managing portion. In addition, motivation costs were one of the main issues with cover32.
Managing out and managing down are two important parts to success in this format. The previous owner and editor-in-chief struggled in managing down due to lack of communication with the team editors. He mainly stayed in contact with the national editors, but never really contacted the team editors. The ship was not a tight one, and that alone incurred these motivation costs. The heads of cover32 also struggled in managing out. There was no real formal recruiting process set up, which led to inefficient production of articles at the site.
Motivation costs, as described by Milton and Roberts, have two parts. Both parts played a part in the issues at cover32. Information incompleteness is one of those. That occurs when parties of an organization don't have all the relevant information. This occurred due to the heads of cover32 not keeping everyone in the loop. Most of the team editors often had no clue as to changes in direction.
The other type of motivation cost is imperfect commitment. Imperfect commitment occurs when parties fail to follow through on promises. Part of this fell on some of the team editors. With the standard being around 30 articles per month, some of the editors failed on keeping this promise. However, with many other commitments and life going on, it's hard to commit to this number. On top of that, payment had always been an issue. Editors were supposed to be compensated, but with traffic so low, none of the editors were compensated for their efforts. That lessens intrinsic motivation, and therefore contributes to imperfect commitment. This also comes down to the failure of managing out and recruiting.
However, things have changed at cover32. Recently, someone bought out cover32 from the old owners. He actually was once a part of this website before going big. He brought a new plan along that would fix some of the transaction costs. First, a formal application was put into place to add more writers. This inflow of workers helped lessen the burden on the managing editors. That part of managing out was stressed. As far as managing down goes, the plan is to be in contact with all of the editors at all times to stress efficiency. The new owner also wants to have a lead division editor, meaning that each division would have one guy managing the efficiency there. Plus, with information being more complete and motivation high (everyone is to be compensated now, even writers), transaction costs should lower, leading to more efficiency as an organization.
cover32 has a hierarchical structure just like any other sports writing site. The owner and the editor-in-chief are at the top of the structure. The editor-in-chief carries out the owner's wishes and vision for the website. Underneath the editor-in-chief sit two national co-editors. Basically, these editors take care of national stories (stories about the NFL in its entirety) and are in direct contact with the national writing team that they assembled. Directly under the national editors lie the managing editors of all 32 NFL teams. Each editor is responsible for the writers and contributors on their team staff, and getting posts out not only from themselves but from their team of writers as well. Obviously, last but not least, the writers sit under the editors and are in direct contact with them about their team's writing schedule.
This structure, while standard, had some issues involving transaction costs. The goal at cover32 is to efficiently provide information to NFL fans and readers and to raise some revenue in the process. Those goods and services are part of the transaction. However, the previous editor-in-chief struggled with the managing portion. In addition, motivation costs were one of the main issues with cover32.
Managing out and managing down are two important parts to success in this format. The previous owner and editor-in-chief struggled in managing down due to lack of communication with the team editors. He mainly stayed in contact with the national editors, but never really contacted the team editors. The ship was not a tight one, and that alone incurred these motivation costs. The heads of cover32 also struggled in managing out. There was no real formal recruiting process set up, which led to inefficient production of articles at the site.
Motivation costs, as described by Milton and Roberts, have two parts. Both parts played a part in the issues at cover32. Information incompleteness is one of those. That occurs when parties of an organization don't have all the relevant information. This occurred due to the heads of cover32 not keeping everyone in the loop. Most of the team editors often had no clue as to changes in direction.
The other type of motivation cost is imperfect commitment. Imperfect commitment occurs when parties fail to follow through on promises. Part of this fell on some of the team editors. With the standard being around 30 articles per month, some of the editors failed on keeping this promise. However, with many other commitments and life going on, it's hard to commit to this number. On top of that, payment had always been an issue. Editors were supposed to be compensated, but with traffic so low, none of the editors were compensated for their efforts. That lessens intrinsic motivation, and therefore contributes to imperfect commitment. This also comes down to the failure of managing out and recruiting.
However, things have changed at cover32. Recently, someone bought out cover32 from the old owners. He actually was once a part of this website before going big. He brought a new plan along that would fix some of the transaction costs. First, a formal application was put into place to add more writers. This inflow of workers helped lessen the burden on the managing editors. That part of managing out was stressed. As far as managing down goes, the plan is to be in contact with all of the editors at all times to stress efficiency. The new owner also wants to have a lead division editor, meaning that each division would have one guy managing the efficiency there. Plus, with information being more complete and motivation high (everyone is to be compensated now, even writers), transaction costs should lower, leading to more efficiency as an organization.
Friday, September 8, 2017
Introduction to Dale Jorgenson
Economist Dale Jorgenson was born in Bozeman, Montana in 1933. He grew up living in Montana, and attended Reed College in Oregon to receive his bachelor's in economics. He followed that up by receiving his masters at Harvard University.
After teaching for a while at Cal-Berkeley, Jorgenson went back to his roots and joined the faculty at Harvard in 1969. By 1980, he was appointed the Frederic Eaton Abbe Professor of Economics. He rose to head the department of economics at Harvard from 1994 to 1997.
He has held many positions over the years. He was a founding member of the Board On Science, Technology, and Economic Policy of the National Research Council in 1991. He served as president of the Econometric Society in 1991 and as president of the American Economic Association (from where he also received the John Bates Clark Medal in 1971) in 2000.
Dale Jorgenson's main area of expertise lies in the area of combining economics and statistics, where he applied many of the principles to solve concrete issues within the economy. He spent a great deal of time studying the determinants of investment spending, and that time produced a great blueprint on how to apply theory into practical use.
Jorgenson always thrived in the area of research. He has published works with over 70 other economists during his life. Jorgenson has authored over 300 articles on economics and his research in his field. He also has written and edited 37 books. His latest book, The World Economy: Growth Or Stagnation, analyzes the economies of over 40 countries and discusses how the world economy is going to continue rapid growth during the 21st century.
Jorgenson currently serves as the Samuel W. Morris University Professor at Harvard University.
Sources:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/jorgenson/home
https://scholar.harvard.edu/jorgenson/biocv
http://www.belfercenter.org/person/dale-jorgenson
After teaching for a while at Cal-Berkeley, Jorgenson went back to his roots and joined the faculty at Harvard in 1969. By 1980, he was appointed the Frederic Eaton Abbe Professor of Economics. He rose to head the department of economics at Harvard from 1994 to 1997.
He has held many positions over the years. He was a founding member of the Board On Science, Technology, and Economic Policy of the National Research Council in 1991. He served as president of the Econometric Society in 1991 and as president of the American Economic Association (from where he also received the John Bates Clark Medal in 1971) in 2000.
Dale Jorgenson's main area of expertise lies in the area of combining economics and statistics, where he applied many of the principles to solve concrete issues within the economy. He spent a great deal of time studying the determinants of investment spending, and that time produced a great blueprint on how to apply theory into practical use.
Jorgenson always thrived in the area of research. He has published works with over 70 other economists during his life. Jorgenson has authored over 300 articles on economics and his research in his field. He also has written and edited 37 books. His latest book, The World Economy: Growth Or Stagnation, analyzes the economies of over 40 countries and discusses how the world economy is going to continue rapid growth during the 21st century.
Jorgenson currently serves as the Samuel W. Morris University Professor at Harvard University.
Sources:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/jorgenson/home
https://scholar.harvard.edu/jorgenson/biocv
http://www.belfercenter.org/person/dale-jorgenson
Friday, September 1, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)