To fully understand the way organizations function, Ray Fisman and Tim Sullivan examine nearly all the components involved in creating a successful operation. In the second chapter Fisman and Sullivan (F&S) discuss the development and designing of jobs. To help their readers gain a complete sense of this process, F&S examined the police force and how they function. They reviewed a study conducted by Peter Moskos, a Harvard sociology graduate student. In his efforts to gain full access to the process, Moskos became an official police officer of Baltimore for the duration of his research. In his participant-observation, Moskos acquired first-hand knowledge of the complicated work environment. F&S described his accounts through a series of
…show more content…
Specifically, they summarized the findings of the study to answer the underlying issue of whether or not organizations need managers—what F&S call pointless bureaucracy. The study consisted of young MBAs giving consulting services to seventeen Indian Corporations. The companies received free reports as long as they cooperated with the study, which advertised that after the adjustments the companies would improve by over $200,000 per year (F&S 133). Although this incentive kept business owners invested in the project it also led to skewed data because the behavior adjustments were projected onto the companies and therefore their permanence is …show more content…
F&S states that Indian factories run extremely different than the major powerhouse companies in the United States like General Motors, Exxon, U.S. Steel and etcetera (F&S 135). In comparison to these quote unquote successful corporations, the Indian projects with dysfunctional manager systems, if in the U.S. would be in the top “two percent of American firms by employment and the top five percent by sales” (F&S 134). With this said, there is substantial evidence that the concept of manager is extremely westernized. F&S supports this claim in their precise distinction between Indian and American companies. Unlike companies in the United States, Indian corporations are typically housed in just one factory and are family run. F&S attributes this to the trust issues that business owners felt and in turn many owners secured their business’s by keeping them in the bloodline and by keeping them where they could see them (F&S
Specifically, they summarized the findings of the study to answer the underlying issue of whether or not organizations need managers—what F&S call pointless bureaucracy. The study consisted of young MBAs giving consulting services to seventeen Indian Corporations. The companies received free reports as long as they cooperated with the study, which advertised that after the adjustments the companies would improve by over $200,000 per year (F&S 133). Although this incentive kept business owners invested in the project it also led to skewed data because the behavior adjustments were projected onto the companies and therefore their permanence is …show more content…
F&S states that Indian factories run extremely different than the major powerhouse companies in the United States like General Motors, Exxon, U.S. Steel and etcetera (F&S 135). In comparison to these quote unquote successful corporations, the Indian projects with dysfunctional manager systems, if in the U.S. would be in the top “two percent of American firms by employment and the top five percent by sales” (F&S 134). With this said, there is substantial evidence that the concept of manager is extremely westernized. F&S supports this claim in their precise distinction between Indian and American companies. Unlike companies in the United States, Indian corporations are typically housed in just one factory and are family run. F&S attributes this to the trust issues that business owners felt and in turn many owners secured their business’s by keeping them in the bloodline and by keeping them where they could see them (F&S