The class after the exam was an amazing experience. I thought that the test was fair but the first exam with professor is sometimes like testing the water, you don't know what you got your self into until you see the result. This wasn't a typical straight forward test and I'm glad that we got a chance to improve the grade.
I believe that people that opposed to editing the results of the test were not right when they talked about taking an advantage of the Professor because he was clearly enjoying the experience and all of it was his idea on the first place. That doesn't seem like someone who is being taken advantage of.
I was very surprised by lack of tact, respect and sensitivity of some of the classmates that started yelling at the people that didn't agree with the majority. Yes, we didn't have much time and it was a high pressure situation, but using dictatorship and force just complicates situation and leads to outcome not desirable by anyone involved.
To get to the blog assignment, I believe that my style of managing this situation was to compromise. My suggestion was to wait with the decision until the end of May, because than we would have more information that we can base our decision on. Until that point there were two suggestions, one to curve the exam and the other one to drop the lower grade. How there were two large groups on opposite sides I thought that it would be better to wait until the second exam and than to decide. Now, when I look back I see that was a terrible idea because it would caused even more fighting and people would never agree. At the end I was pretty happy with the outcome.
I don't think that this situation could be managed better in any other way because the lack of time. If we were to split in smaller groups we would have more suggestions and then groups would feel strongly about their choice, so that would only cause more conflict.
Honestly, I was pretty happy with the result and surprised that we got everyone to agree. I think we were lucky that those that still clearly don't agree voted for class' best interest.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Changing Trends in Telecommuting
Dear classmates,
I read this interesting article in WSJ so I would like to share it with you. The article talks about decrease in telecommuting trends and restructure in existing ones because the research that shows better performance of those working in companies headquarters.
Here is the article:
Some Companies Rethink
The Telecommuting Trend
The call came toward the end of my hour as a recent guest on a Minnesota Public Radio talk show. "Jim from Minneapolis" said he and many of his telecommuting colleagues were being called back to the office.
After years of working productively from home, Jim said he was surprised and disappointed.
Although working from home has been expanding steadily, some chinks are appearing in the trend. A few big promoters of home-based and mobile-office work arrangements, including AT&T, Intel, Hewlett-Packard and parts of the federal government, have called some home-based workers back to the office, causing some to quit. The callbacks are small and don't reflect a full retrenchment, but the factors at work -- a push to consolidate operations, and the notion that teamwork improves when people work face-to-face -- suggest other employers might follow suit as recession clouds loom.
MAILBOX
Sue Shellenbarger answers questions on contacting employers ahead of a move, and careers for those with a criminal record.AT&T called an unspecified number of its 5,000 to 6,000 telecommuters back to the office late last year as part of a consolidation of operations, a spokesman says. SBC Communications, which acquired AT&T and BellSouth, among other companies, and took the AT&T name, now has a national network of offices, making telecommuting unnecessary, he says. Also, some managers wanted to bring workers together to reorganize their work and build new teams quickly.
Intel recently began requiring many telecommuters in its information-technology group to report to the office at least four days a week. Full-time home-office workers now make up 1% to 2% of Intel's 5,500 information-technology workers, down from less than 4%, a spokeswoman says; managers wanted "to keep the team spirit strong, which requires face-to-face interaction, impromptu dialogues, collaboration and mentoring," she explains.
Hewlett-Packard, the company that invented flextime, called a significant number of home-office information-technology workers back to the office in 2006, during a consolidation of its 85 data centers into six.
And the federal government, also a big promoter, posted a 7.3% drop in telecommuters from 2005 to 2006, partly because of a callback by the Interior Department. Paul Hoffman, a deputy assistant secretary for the department, cites some managers' security worries about the potential theft of laptops with sensitive data, or hackers intruding on remote users' wireless networks.
All these employers insist they still fully support telecommuting. And U.S. corporate employees working full time from home are still rising, gaining 30% since 2005 to 2.44 million in 2007, says Ray Boggs, a research vice president with IDC, a Framingham, Mass., market-research concern. Nortel, JetBlue and others employers are expanding work-at-home.
But if these bellwether employers can call telecommuters back to the office, any company can. Telecommuters are easy to fire or relocate. Andrea Meyers had been working successfully from home for three years when her small employer laid off all of its 30 telecommuters with no explanation. It may be easier to sever people working from home, she says, because they're "not visible." Although she understood the move, "It was a shock," says Ms. Meyers, a specialist in online learning systems.
Some tips on keeping a work-at-home gig:
I read this interesting article in WSJ so I would like to share it with you. The article talks about decrease in telecommuting trends and restructure in existing ones because the research that shows better performance of those working in companies headquarters.
Here is the article:
Some Companies Rethink
The Telecommuting Trend
The call came toward the end of my hour as a recent guest on a Minnesota Public Radio talk show. "Jim from Minneapolis" said he and many of his telecommuting colleagues were being called back to the office.
After years of working productively from home, Jim said he was surprised and disappointed.
Although working from home has been expanding steadily, some chinks are appearing in the trend. A few big promoters of home-based and mobile-office work arrangements, including AT&T, Intel, Hewlett-Packard and parts of the federal government, have called some home-based workers back to the office, causing some to quit. The callbacks are small and don't reflect a full retrenchment, but the factors at work -- a push to consolidate operations, and the notion that teamwork improves when people work face-to-face -- suggest other employers might follow suit as recession clouds loom.
MAILBOX
Sue Shellenbarger answers questions on contacting employers ahead of a move, and careers for those with a criminal record.AT&T called an unspecified number of its 5,000 to 6,000 telecommuters back to the office late last year as part of a consolidation of operations, a spokesman says. SBC Communications, which acquired AT&T and BellSouth, among other companies, and took the AT&T name, now has a national network of offices, making telecommuting unnecessary, he says. Also, some managers wanted to bring workers together to reorganize their work and build new teams quickly.
Intel recently began requiring many telecommuters in its information-technology group to report to the office at least four days a week. Full-time home-office workers now make up 1% to 2% of Intel's 5,500 information-technology workers, down from less than 4%, a spokeswoman says; managers wanted "to keep the team spirit strong, which requires face-to-face interaction, impromptu dialogues, collaboration and mentoring," she explains.
Hewlett-Packard, the company that invented flextime, called a significant number of home-office information-technology workers back to the office in 2006, during a consolidation of its 85 data centers into six.
And the federal government, also a big promoter, posted a 7.3% drop in telecommuters from 2005 to 2006, partly because of a callback by the Interior Department. Paul Hoffman, a deputy assistant secretary for the department, cites some managers' security worries about the potential theft of laptops with sensitive data, or hackers intruding on remote users' wireless networks.
All these employers insist they still fully support telecommuting. And U.S. corporate employees working full time from home are still rising, gaining 30% since 2005 to 2.44 million in 2007, says Ray Boggs, a research vice president with IDC, a Framingham, Mass., market-research concern. Nortel, JetBlue and others employers are expanding work-at-home.
But if these bellwether employers can call telecommuters back to the office, any company can. Telecommuters are easy to fire or relocate. Andrea Meyers had been working successfully from home for three years when her small employer laid off all of its 30 telecommuters with no explanation. It may be easier to sever people working from home, she says, because they're "not visible." Although she understood the move, "It was a shock," says Ms. Meyers, a specialist in online learning systems.
Some tips on keeping a work-at-home gig:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
