Assignment #3: Module 1 - The Individual
Ciera’ Harris, Chukwuemeka Okereke, Kayla Paige, Tavion Powell, Farah Raymond, and Jill Ricks

PADG 5500.01
Dr. Wigfall
1/28/2016

R/J - Chapters 5: Personality and Values
1. Younger individuals do differ from older individuals in their plans to remain with one employer for a long time. Younger individuals (Millennials) are not as interested in job security and stability as older individuals (Baby Boomers) were when they entered the workforce. Millennials are focused more on the now, rather than ten or twenty years from now. Millennials are more mobile and do not mind moving around. Baby Boomers focus on career then salary, now the focus is salary then career. These differences exist both because of shifting economic realities and changing work values. When Baby Boomers started off in the workforce, the economy was completely different. Millennials have more knowledge and access to information on jobs through many sources, especially the Internet. Baby Boomers did not have that kind of access.
2. It can ultimately hurt to job surf as soon as the desire strikes. Employers like to see some degree of stability on resumes. An application can get passed by because of someone moving around too much from company to company. The employer does have the right to ask about job surfing. The employer also can ask about short term and long-term goals. An employer does not want to invest in someone who is not willing to stay for a significant amount of time.
3. Foster’s views of Millennials can be combated by expressing one's desire to grow within the organization. This will let him know that not all Millennials are non-committers. It is based on the individual's’ values.

R/J- Chapters 6: Perceptions and Individual Decision Making
1)

Attribution is virtually an explanation for a given behavior. The author of this article

details two kinds of attribution: internal and external. Internal attribution claims that the person was directly responsible for the event (www.as.wvu.edu). By contrast, an external attribution claims that some outside thing motivated the event (www.as.wvu.edu). Relative to the position the article takes---predicated on the multiple studies conducted----internal attributions are favored in comparison to external attributions. This is because when people make an internal attribution for their actions, it appears that they also change their attitudes and beliefs about themselves (www.as.wvu.edu). Hence, they become “that kind” of person and the desired behavior follows naturally. Thus, the key for change is found with internal attribution
(www.as.wvu.edu).
However, this is not to debase the effectiveness of external attributions. Rather, external forces can be effective if the receivers believe that they “earned” the external factor for internal reasons. Thus, rewards work well when the receiver thinks, “I got the gold sticker because I am a good student who did a good job on this assignment.” Or punishments work well when the child thinks, “I got punished because I did a bad thing” (www.as.wvu.edu). If children (and other kinds of people) believe that they essentially did nothing on their own to earn the external agent, then that external agent is unlikely to cause any long term, internal change (www.as.wvu.edu).
Taking this theory into account, internal attribution is seen as a healthier form of attribution because it promotes integrity and accountability. Through the sundry research the author provides, this article illustrates how we as humans can explain things. Most compelling in some of these studies is when subjects received attribution training, persuasion training, or reinforcement training, attribution training had the most positive impact. Therefore, the

plentitude of studies plausibly show that if individuals respond more to either type of attribution, it not only bespeaks why we behave a certain way, but may indicate behavior over longer periods of time. For example, someone who constantly attributes colleague confrontations to how that other person made him/her feel may not be expected to make an internal attribution in a similar circumstance in the future.

2) An article found on www.huffingtonpost.com titled “Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage
Nationwide” provides insight about the legalization of gay marriage in the U.S. This article highlights the progressive impact of satisfying a large population of same-sex couples in
America. The consistent determination of many citizens has lead the decision-making process for the government to support the concerns this particular interest group. In the case of legalizing gay marriage in the United States, the government has shown a good deal of federal support.
Utilitarianism has been well represented by the government with this ethical paradigm. The
1

majority concluded that the right for same-sex couples to marry is protected under the 14th
Amendment, citing the clauses that guarantee equal protection and due process. A focus on rights concerns marriage equality rights of U.S. citizens who desire to be in a same-sex marriage. The
2

U.S. Supreme Court case, Baker v. Nelson occurred in 1972 which involved a homosexual relationship among two men who were denied a marriage license. The couple also lost to the
Minnesota Supreme Court. Even though the rights of those men was not given at that moment, it had become one of the first stepping-stones for many other advocates who favored similar views.
A focus on justice involved the initiatives that the states took and voter participation. Maryland and Massachusetts are claimed to be some of the first states to pass a statute banning marriage between same-sex couples. Because of the popular vote which had steadily increased since the interests for this right became more of a priority to this group of people, the law has passed in all fifty states. Overall this article has shown the impact of an ethical decision which has changed the lives of many in our nation.

1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/26/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_7470036.html

2

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/history-and-timeline-of-marriage

R/J - Chapters 7 and 8:
Employee bonuses can be an effective means of rewarding and appreciating good performance provided that you structure them appropriately. The trick is to give bonuses to groups of your employees instead of on an individual basis. When you freely disclose details about the company’s financial performance, employees can begin to think more like owners than workers.
They can also calculate what bonuses will be paid when the entire company hits certain targets.
Whether you divide your employees into teams according to how their work helps drive company performance or treat them all as a single unit, there are advantages to rewarding employees as groups rather than as individuals. First, paying bonuses to groups of employees encourages them to communicate and coordinate their work to improve overall company performance. Even if they’re assigned to different parts of the company, your employees will naturally seek common cause and try to maximize every aspect of their performance. Second, a group bonus plan helps to strengthen employees’ feelings of loyalty and responsibility toward you and your company. This typically pays off in increased productivity, longer retention, fewer absences, and greater willingness to press hard during periods of heavy demand. Acknowledge
Varied Contributions Within each group bonus, leave room for people with more responsibility to earn a larger share of the employee group’s total reward. Often, the whole team is best positioned to determine the fairest allocation of bonus money among individuals. Allowing the team to set its own bonus allocations also increases every employee’s “buy in” to the bonus system as a whole. Leave Room for Improvement Whatever bonus plan you establish is likely to require adjustments from time to time. Make this clear to your employees. At first, you may get some pushback; people tend to feel uneasy about changes. But if your actions make the bonus plan fairer to all your employees and more reflective of both individual and group contributions to the company’s overall success, your employees will come around. Allowing for ongoing

flexibility will better prepare your employees to accept and even welcome changes to the group bonus plan without feeling undermined, shortchanged, or sandbagged. It may also get them to suggest better ways to align their incentives with the company’s overall performance.