The given blog provides “10 Innovative Ways To Reward Your Employees”. This blog raises numerous interesting points, all of which undermine the importance of not only rewarding employees today, but also motivating them for the future. In reading this blog I was constantly reminded of Zappos shoes- simple gestures that acknowledge the effort of workers creates large payoffs for the entire company. On a higher level, I see this blog being intertwined with organizational behavior in the sense that it looks to create unification or a driving force among an entire company. However, I believe the author of this blog undermines the importance that each of the given incentives must be done in moderation. If not properly utilized, the benefits of these incentives can lead workers to make “short cuts” in order to get more rewards, as we have seen with traditional methods of rewarding employees such as cash bonuses. The desire to reap the benefits of a reward can pressure workers into making unethical and ill-motivated decisions. Acknowledging that the innovative reward system created by the author is not immune to such complications is crucial for employers. I believe the author of these ideas is on the right track by looking to create an alternative reward system, but needs to go back and reevaluate the logistics of how these rewards should be carried out to ensure workers do not become motivated for the wrong reasons.

Original blog:

http://www.wisebread.com/small-business/10-innovative-ways-to-reward-your-employees

Photo:

http://nairabrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Employee-Motivation.jpg

The most significant differentiating factor between the UN and social entrepreneurship is politics. Simply put, there is too much bureaucratic red tape associated with the UN for them to carryout their goals. Furthermore, a number of countries in the UN have conflicting interests that also hinder their ability to provide effective aid to countries in need, regardless of funding. Both of these factors ultimately lead to a lack of direction and unification in the actions taken by the UN, rendering many of their efforts futile. As a result of this lack of direction, the UN tends to establish international diplomacy instead of directly creating tangible solutions to the problems faced by impoverished nations. On the other hand, social enterprise and the ARC initiative look to create innovation and opportunities for developing countries; social entrepreneurship is not limited to the regulations and restrictions faced by the UN. In a world where the UN is fully funded, social enterprise would still be unique in the sense that it provides impoverished nations with the means to lift them selves out of poverty, and does not “throw money” at their issues. Specifically, the “ARC initiative” and other social enterprises such as micro-finance are able to directly impact the economy of impoverished nations. By creating sustainable solutions, such initiatives contribute to stimulating an entire economy for generations to come. It would be naïve to undermine the importance and impact of the UN, but I still believe that social enterprise creates a change that is unparalleled.

Has Norway found a solution to Canada’s Oil problems? According to the given article, the answer is yes. By tightening up their carbon-taxes, creating a crown oil company and a sovereign wealth fund, Norway is able to lessen their necessity of oil and create green initiatives. I believe it is crucial that the Canadian government looks to follow Norway’s footsteps. By raising our carbon tax, the Canadian government would discourage the production of carbon emissions, while receiving billions of dollars from large oil companies. The government could then re-invest this money to stimulate the economy, and cut the taxes placed on labor and income. Reduced taxes on the labor and income would result in more money in taxpayers pockets that would further stimulate the economy, benefiting the entire business community. In a sense, I view this system as a full-circle providing economic and environmental benefit to the general public. However, I also understand the implications of employing such a system, especially as Canada is heavily oil dependent. I view the combination of sustainability with economic stability and growth as one of the greatest challenges in the current global community. Thus, I believe it is crucial that Canada looks to learn from the success from Norway, and perhaps look to streamline their current system. Norway’s national competitive market and high GDP suggests that they may have found a sustainable solution, giving the Canadian government some food for thought.

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/norway-proves-oil-rich-nations-can-be-both-green-and-prosperous/article21514455/

Southwest Airlines (SA) has made a horrible mistake. As written in the above article, Southwest failed to comply with proper maintenance standards with their airplanes and is now facing a lawsuit from the FAA. So, what does this mean for Southwest? Simply put, they are creating their own barriers to enter the Canadian market. At a time when they are looking to expand into Canada and extend their customer basis, Southwest should be extra cautious in all aspects of their business especially customer safety. By failing to comply with the government set standards, SA has now damaged their brand reputation and reliability- two aspects of the airline business that directly impact profit. Although SA is looking to challenge the lawsuit, I argue that their attempts will be unable to salvage their brand reputation. I acknowledge that this lawsuit will not “run them out of business”, I am, however, perplexed by their recklessness during a pivotal time-period of their business. In moving forward, I would recommend that SA increase their marketing budget to recapture their customer base and re-establish themselves as a “top quality airline”. We have seen with Westjet’s Christmas marketing campaign, that a proper marketing strategy can yield large payoffs with customers. It will be interesting to see how this lawsuit affects SA’s transition into the Canadian market- only time will tell.

References:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2014/11/aeroplane-maintenance

In response to Akbar’s Blog Post regarding the declining market for “Jell-O”, I would agree with his suggestion that they have to “approach a slightly different market now”. I recommend that Kraft, the creator of Jell-O, try to create a healthier alternative to their current product. Financially, Jell-O is seeing an extreme decline in sales and revenue. This drop in demand for Jell-O products is not temporary and has a direct correlation to a raise in nation-wide nutritional standards, endorsed by the government through various healthy eating initiatives. This external threat to their target demographic far outweighs any point of difference Jell-O has to offer to consumers; throwing more money at their marketing campaign will not be able to remove the stigma from “sugary desserts”.  However, Jell-O and Kraft still have strong brand names that could easily penetrate a different segment of the snack-food market. As quoted by analyst Harry Balzer “There’s a lot of snacks that are very functional and make rational, logical sense to consumers”. I believe that kraft should divest their time and capital in Jell-O and look to reinvest it into such a product.