Recently the iPredict admin put this on their blog (https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=blog)
$2.50 account set up fee
$2.50/month account fee
0.35% trading fee (35 cents per $100 traded); 0% trading fee on Active Orders and bundle purchases.
No withdrawal fee.
We will be introducing a close account function with this change.
So alas, this has cut the bottom right out of the market, for small traders like me with sub-$100 amounts invested in different stocks.
I have big issues with this.....
- Most stocks take more than a month to mature
- If you gains are consistantly 30% (@$100 invested) you will end up with negative returns
- With no-one taking the "cheap risks" the only players left will be the sharks, completely red water market but with no prey.
- ipredict was a tool to define what the people think, now it is what the elitist think.
I believe you will find this is the beginning of the end of ipredict. No doubt there will be somebody out there that is thinking - "Hey now is the perfect time to create a competitor". If so you are correct, not only are you correct - but I have $1000 to invest in your company and become a shareholder. I will even help you get it off the ground. Drop me an email farrst@gmail.com if you wish to start this venture.
Take a pen,
Write 3 poems:
Poem #1
Write all that you dislike about the world, your life, your relationships, your job....everything you can think of.
Poem #2
Write down what you have changed in the world in the last 10 years
write down what you have changed in yourself in the last 10 years
Poem #3
Write down everything that is good in your life.
Now sing it like a song.
What are you singing about?
How would you change the lyrics to the song?
Who are you singing about?
Musicians do this all the time - quite often they will write a song about something in the world, sing it - then find out its about themselves.
In the 6-months that I had been working on the company, employees in my division had rapidly dropped off. Either due to; disgruntled employees quitting, employees transferring to other divisions (or being promoted) or poor performance staff members being sacked, the division had suffered 100% staff turnover in the previous 12 months.
The issue had become severe due to the staff levels hitting an all time low, making the division’s one of the smallest in the firm’s 25 year history.This was an issue to 50% of the company’s revenue being generated within this division (however this was not looked into – as explained below).
Solution – Complete restructure of Divisions operations:
Due to the situation becoming obvious to the directors of the firm. Moves had to be made quickly.
It was assumed that staff were leaving due to poor management, so the management of the division was questioned. Promptly after this – of the 2 managers in charge of the division, 1 quit and the other downgraded himself to a lower level. This left a vacancy for a management position – which was filled by someone external to the company.
Due to this manager being completely new to not only the situation, but existing company strategy – it was found best to only train him on the proposed ‘new’ strategy for the division.
Once he had completed his induction in this training (approximately 2 months), he then was put in charge of the division, and attempted to enforce the new strategies and procedures.The result of this was a muddy combination of both old and new strategies,poorly followed by staff – who continued to leave the firm at an alarming rate.
Referenced into Lewin’s Model (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p403)
Unfreezing:
Staff were leaving, and were becoming vocal that they required change to continue work in the company – but perhaps, their views on change, were not those held by higher levels?
When it came to the point when new systems were being put in place, there seemed to be a lack of communication between upper-level management (who were designing the system) and lower level staff (who were using the old system).
So this was a failure in the unfreezing process as different people had different issues with the system, and these issues were not laid out for all to see.
Had the unfreezing process been performed, management may have also induced some of the staff’s ideas into the new structures. Likewise, the staff would have been more accepting of the new strategies if they had ALL the negatives of the old ones pointed out to them. I realize now that while we had most pieces of the puzzle, we did not have all of them.
Changing:
You cannot say the changing stage was a failure. In the end of the day – the policies and procedures within this division did change. However, due to changes being enforced almost via word of mouth down the chain-of-command, the change process was not very effective.
It was also found that since the change was attempted on all sections and fronts at once, that the whole division took a while to actively attempt the change. This directly affected the company’s revenue over this period – and an effect on this was that no future changing of the company would exceed a certain scale at one time, directly changing the whole company rather than 1 division.
The end resulting change, was ineffective as not only did it not sway the company enough to become efficient again, it also did not solve the initial problems successfully.
Refreezing:
When the proposed change was implemented, staff were rewarded when they introduced it into their day-to-day routine. However these rewards were usually seen by me and other staff members as very cheap “pat-on-the-back”, with no substance.
This is most likely why the new changes were merged into the existing procedures – which were more natural to most of the staff members.
It was also hard to find out if the new changes were being performed correctly, as it was poorly documented, and usually shown via the chain of command. Leaving the view of a correctly performed task, in the perspective of those who taught it rather than created it.
Result:
I continued to work, very successfully for the firm against all odds for another 9 months. Getting myself promoted through the ranks that fell to wayside. The new manager of the division was held critically accountable for the failure to implement the new strategies; his notice of resignation was handed in soon after. I left after I had seen that the company was continuing the “cycle of restructure” that past employees had informed me to.
References:
Kiniki, A, & Kreitner, R,. (2009). Organization Behaviour: Key Concepts, skills & best practices.
While in charge of the service team at XXXX group ltd. A series of meetings had been organised between the staff of the service team, and staff external to the service team. This was organised by all heads of the departments within the company (whom attended). Including the Managing Director (who became the chairperson).The meetings were to address staff-shortages, work-ethos, Quality of Service and Customer response.
Potential for personal conflict in the following areas:
-Service members towards Sales staff (due to customers expectations set too high).
-Service members against each other (due to bad work ethics, poor performance).
-Service members against management (us-vs.-them mentality).
-Management towards staff (lack of revenue being generated).
-Members against each other (for not being heard in the meeting).
All of which could lead to Dysfunctional Conflict rather than Functional Conflict (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009), which is why the meeting was intended.
As someone who was could qualify for the employee, third-party and a manager (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p282) during various conflicts. I employed the following ideas:
a)Putting ALL issues up on the board for all to see (including those that went against the ideas of the majority). Then all of these items were discussed. I questioned my own ideas – as did everyone else. Everyone was prompted to negotiate with each other as to why these issues have come up. Many people found that once they dropped their own perception that the other person was wrong, they actually agreed to a lot of the ideas that were put on the board. This “Added-Value Negotiation” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p291) could not have happened if the meeting members could first see everyone else’s perspective. Previous to that it would have been a case of “his words versus mine”.
b)Once all issues were apparently displayed and discussed, the chairperson noticed that a few members had not talked at all. He prompted them asking them why their thoughts were not worth noting.They said that all the important ones had already been addressed.They then said that they felt no one would support their ideas as they only really applied to them. I volunteered to play “Devils Advocate” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p286), and even if I did not support their idea personally, I could support it in debate with everyone else. The issue was the CSO forms the department operated. I found this very difficult as I had personally created the form. However after arguing to the group (and me) supporting the individuals stating that filling out the form was a waste of time – everyone concluded that the form itself could be simplified, and it would be integrated more into company process.
c)The “Concern for Self” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p288) model was applied to many of the managers in the meeting. They found it difficult to deal with some issue – especially complaints towards their teams. I even found myself at a complete end with the sales manager. The previous Service Manager had been too “Obliging” and “Avoiding Conflict” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p289) with the Sales Manager. This had left the Service Department abused. I found that since I had experienced this personally – I had shifted to a “Dominating” person, DEMANDING THE SERVICE TEAM GOT MORE SUPPORT. This put me in personal conflict with the sales manager, who also was a dominating character. To resolve this I had to change the way I acted with him, not necessary bend – but more show how what I was planning would “Integrate” within the company as a whole. I showed how this would benefit sales, and how we could assist his team more if he saw out perspective.
Overall the meetings did end on an “Ok basis” – however there was still personal conflict between members of the company (and the team). But these “Seeds of Personal Conflict” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p280) had been sewn long before – and would take time to be remedied.
References:
Kiniki, A, & Kreitner, R,. (2009). Organization Behaviour: Key Concepts, skills & best practices.
Haha here is one of those "Donny don't" things.
Names censored to protect the stupid
Feedback
My dismissal from continued employment at "Company X".
“Feedback for firing”
I was “let-go” from employment at _ after 7 months of working for them. Prior to my leaving the premises – I was asked to attend a “Feedback meeting” which started and concluded in my dismissal from the firm.
I was told that my employment was not going to be continued past its “trial period”. This was due to my performance not being sufficient. No specifics were given. I was left dumbstruck as previous employers had only acclaim for me – many had written letters of recommendation for me. I was also lost as to how this was to benefit the company; as not only was I the most senior member of the project I was working on, I was the only one who had been on the project since its conception.
I also was angry – as it was directly stated that myperformance was ‘lacking’. Which did not sit right with me as I had put an excess of at least 15 hours / week, uncharged overtime, for the previous 2 months.....due to poor staff allocation on the project?
It was noted that I was “outspoken” specifically with regards to issues and concerns with the project. However I was not prompted to elaborate on these, nor was I questioned for my thoughts on the project.
The whole process was so “matter-of-fact” and structured that my instincts told me to sign whatever was in-front of me and get out of that room (and the building) as soon as possible. This left me completely disillusioned about the world, and disempowered to change it.
If I was consulted as to why there were issues in the project, or why it was not on schedule – I could have addressed many misconceptions about the project. The issues could have been addressed, and resources channelled towards the project – improving both the perspective of the management, and the image of the company (who looked ill-prepared in the customers’ eyes).
Instead there was a dysfunctional conflict as my team then promptly confronted the management as to why all the project information was sent out the door in my head.
Identifying the Problem (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p248)
It was assumed that since the numbers did not sit right, and my name was on most of the project information – the problems sat with me. However if the feedback had prompted me to identify the problems to management, I could have done so simply. This would have also have empowered me – as I would have removed the misconception in my mind that my teams thoughts and concerns were being ignored.
Balance of Upward Feedback (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p204)
As the project had recently had a change in staff and a restructure. A new project manager was placed in charge of the project. He reported directly to the top regional level of management (and them to him).However due to his lack of knowledge in the project area, and lack of understanding of what the staff were doing – he could not relay information to management or staff involved in the project.He found it difficult to communicate ideas and feedback which separated the staff and management into an “us and them” scenario.
He also was not present during contact to customers, design meetings or even my dismissal. This lost any trust he had built up within the team (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p235).He was a break in the communication line – and feedback was not getting transferred.
Overall I found the feedback that justified my dismissal did not qualify as “objective information” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p201). This made me feel that I did not really want to work for a firm that operates on such poor information.
I felt the feedback was not an “exchange of information” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009, p201). It was simply a witch-hunt, and I was a martyr for their cause.
References:
Kiniki, A, & Kreitner, R,. (2009). Organization Behaviour: Key Concepts, skills & best practices.
Many companies face a difficulty maintaining staff. Most often this is not due to them finding problems within their workplace. More a case that, they no longer feel the excitement or challenges in their workplaces they enjoy.
(COMPANY NAME REMOVED) realise this potential existed. Not just in individuals – but the company as a whole needs to be changing to promote Motivation. They do this in various ways; changing suppliers to add new and interesting ranges (*, p149, Motivators), changing people’s roles within the company (*, p148, Job Rotation), re-adjusting goals (*, p146, Maslow’s Theory) and but allowing for company successes to be rewarded (*, p148, McClelland’s Need for Achievement).
However their most effective motivation technique was actually via Perceptual-Motor Approaches (*, p153).
Every process was forever being updated. If a fault was found – the question was asked “How did the fault occur?” which was followed by “how can it be corrected?”.
Common sense prevailed, if some was required to make the process quicker/easier it was implemented. Inspection tests became simple enough that even new employees could learn on the job. Tool layouts become accessible in order of use. This made the employees feel more motivated to do their jobs – as the fear of doing the job incorrectly was removed. Managers felt more motivated to perform other tasks rather than watch the employees do theirs (which also benefited employees’ motivation).
References:
Kiniki, A, & Kreitner, R,. (2009). Organization Behaviour: Key Concepts, skills & best practices.
Something that did not make the cut for an assignment. But i figured - hey this is good stuff....why not put it up here....So viola
Organizational Behavior Maintaining Damage Control (or “Status”) Board (Visual display of current activities – either via online Bulletin board or physical mediums such as whiteboards) Maintaining resources, and displaying this information for all who are in the company – is often a neglected culture. It is assumed that sales divisions / service divisions / accounts divisions even management divisions all operate on their own accord – completely independent from one another. However the reality is that a lot of these areas are interdependent on one another’s. They rely heavily on interdepartmental communication – yet very little useful information is conveyed between them. Adapting a simple culture of maintaining message boards, can assist greatly in interdepartmental communications – allowing them to setup current information for “future use” with other departments. Rather than having that information locked away within individuals. Maintaining these boards have to be an internal culture however – otherwise they rapidly become outdated, and unused as a resource. Specific components of the culture of maintaining status boards that must be maintained are: a) Date stamp (and if required timestamp) all new information when updating. Otherwise the information becomes useless – as the other departments will still ask the team members as to the status of members, project or stock…..at this very time. A Status board with accurate information will be considered the focus point of a department – Colleagues will have less hostility to a department that has a more transparent feel to its operations. Likewise, if the information is inaccurate – divisions will vent their frustrations of not having enough information towards the nearest team member they can find. b) Refer to objects (or people if required) off the board, when updating the board. The last thing teams external want to do is have to ask for help because they do not have sufficient information. Who is on that job? What is the job number? Why do we need this part? Where do these sales figures relate to? What month archives are you talking about? People do not mind going and looking for information themselves – however if they do not have sufficient information, quite often (due to inter-office conflict) they assume that you are hiding this reference material – and feel suspicious around you. c) Most important of all – UPDATE THE MEDIUM FREQUENTLY! This is a medium between 2 parties inside a company. This needs to be a culture of updating the medium. Without this medium, people usually go to the only other central point in the team - management, who may not have the whole picture. It also helps the internal team structure as all team members. This is your teams’ voice – both inside and outside the team. If it’s clear and concise, your team is respected within the organization. And respect means that quite often “complaints” towards your team from other section of the organization become “queries”.
