Getting Acquainted With Mobility Scooters

Getting Acquainted With Mobility Scooters

Amigo was made to help you among the relatives of Mr. Thieme. Therefore, it was inferred that the idea of develop and create the unit was spurred by the requirement to provide assistance to that relative. From then on, mobility scooter acceptance spread out like fireplace. From the USA, mobility scooters were leading information and started soliciting interest utilizing places throughout the world.

Not a lot of people can easily pay for the individual range of motion jogging, crippled and scooters handicapped folks are finding wish within the system my company, though now. Flexibility scooters are positioned as amongst the most essential and sought-after gadgets by handicapped and disabled individuals. And there are more than adequate reasons for this.

My company High-technology, sophisticated with Mobility Scooter

During the 1970s, flexibility scooters were regarded as one of the most sophisticated units ever produced. Not a lot of people could buy and avail the unit. Due to the advanced technologies and sophisticated form of scooters, the product was then considered the gear of the future. Now, throughout the modern times, range of motion scooters will be more popular than before, but you can still find a number of setbacks that avoid the total interest in the equipment.

In case you have been partial to reading the Wonder comics named ‘X-Men’, which was also adopted for television set cartoon collection and further afterwards being a video range, you would probably notice that you will find a range of motion scooter made use of by a figure generally known as Professor Charles Xavier. It is actually observed that the kind of scooter made use of by Professor which would soon become the apple company of your vision of future and contemporary developments.

However, whilst the device marketplace is nonetheless waiting for growth, people are nevertheless targeted in the contemporary times’ gadget speculate. Range of motion scooters will still be considered much expensive so that you can enjoy the size acceptance standing that is accorded to goods and that are availed as cheaply as possible in the market.

Basic options that come with Scooter

Range of motion scooters are just like wheelchairs inside the feeling which they facilitate mobility for crippled individuals. The strolling handicapped individuals would now have the ability to roam and go walking even when they do not possess the full capability and ability to do that.

Like wheelchairs, scooters are being used as being a gadget to a location where the end user would sit back. At the gadget, the person can wander about by merely resting. As the common wheelchair is relocated and operated personally by the customer, range of motion scooters utilizes other styles of vitality and movements sources.

Up to now, freedom scooters may be operated by electrical power or by fuel. Freedom scooters which are operated by electrical energy are perfect for indoor uses. This is because the power and ability from the device is quite definitely minimal and would certainly not go longer. Electric powered freedom scooters are more expensive to build up and maintain for the reason that uses it a lot of electric power.

Continue Reading

Next President of Gallaudet University

Next President of Gallaudet University

The presidential search is a process that typically occurs once in a blue moon in colleges and universities. When it does happen, it is almost always a historic moment – presenting an exceptional opportunity for an institution of higher education to assess its accomplishments in support of its mission, and carefully consider how its infrastructure and programs support all members of its community.Next President of Gallaudet University In the search for a new leader, members of the board of trustees not only evaluate candidates’ experience and expertise in administering an educational body, but also the new approaches and new collaborations that the next president would bring to the campus.

For Gallaudet University, September 1, 2005 was a historic moment. It was when Dr. I. King Jordan, its first deaf president, announced to a campus gathering in Elstad Auditorium that he would retire effective December 31, 2006. The announcement set into motion the search for the next Gallaudet’s president.Next President of Gallaudet University In its October 6-7, 2005 meeting, the Board of Trustees determined that a search committee made up of students, faculty, staff, administrators, trustees, and alumni will be formed.

Subsequent to the announcement, Ms. Pamela Holmes, Chair of the Presidential Search Committee, reported that Dr. Brenda Jo Brueggemann, Ms. Susan J. Dickinson, Mr. Frank Ross, Dr. Benjamin J. Soukup, Jr., and Mr. Christopher Sullivan, III were the selected Board of Trustees members who will join her on the Search Committee.Next President of Gallaudet University Ms. Holmes further indicated that the six Board members on the Search Committee will begin meeting electronically to finalize the selection of the remaining 11 members completing the composition of the committee with representatives from faculty, staff, Clerc Center, students, and alumni. Once the selection process is completed, the names of the selected individuals will be posted on the Presidential Search Process

Brief Deaf President Now History
Following Dr. Jerry C. Lee’s resignation as Gallaudet’s president in 1987, leaders in the national deaf community immediately joined with Gallaudet alumni, students, faculty, staff and friends in urging the Board of Trustees to select a deaf president for the University.Next President of Gallaudet University By February 1988, the Board had narrowed the field of candidates to six – three deaf, three hearing. Eventually, the field was further narrowed to three finalists, one of whom was a hearing woman named Dr. Elisabeth Zinser. The two deaf candidates were Dr. Harvey Corson and Dr. I. King Jordan.

Gallaudet’s Board announced on March 6, 1988 the appointment of Dr. Zinser as its next president. Students and their supporters immediately registered their refusal to accept the Board’s decision and instead, launched the Deaf President Now (DPN) protest. The DPN protest was truly a watershed moment – helping unite faculty, students, staff, alumni and members of deaf communities across the country and abroad in support of the onerous notion that it was time that Gallaudet was led by a deaf president. The week-long protest captured worldwide attention and created great awareness of deaf people, their language, and their culture. Two days after being appointed the new president, and under pressure from the DPN movement, Dr. Zinser resigned.Next President of Gallaudet University Gallaudet’s eighth-and first deaf-president, Dr. I. King Jordan, was selected. Mr. Philip Bravin became the first deaf chair of the Board of Trustees, and the board began in earnest the process that would fulfill a demand of the DPN protesters that 51 percent of the members of the Board of Trustees be deaf.

Why Would the Selection of the Next President Matter to You?
Gallaudet University’s strategic goals make clear that its status as “the only liberal arts university in the world designed exclusively for deaf and hard of hearing students” means that it serves a much larger community than just the folks who live, learn and work at 800 Florida Avenue, N.E, Washington, DC. Its Strategic Goal #6 states that “Gallaudet University nurtures and strengthens its position as a global educational and cultural center for people who are deaf and hard of hearing and demonstrates its commitment to diversity by reaching out to deaf and hard of hearing people everywhere.” As a result, Gallaudet has made significant programmatic, research and financial commitments to creating a better environment for deaf people to thrive in, regardless of whether it takes place in D.C. or beyond.

For instance, the Gallaudet website states that “[l]ast year, Gallaudet served more than 48,000 individuals through conferences, sign language classes, the Office of International Programs and Services, World Deaf Leadership Program, its regional centers (Flagler College, Florida; Johnson County Community College, Kansas; Kapi’olani Community College, Hawaii; Northern Essex Community College, Massachusetts; and Ohlone College, California), and summer enrichment programs for deaf and hard of hearing community of Greater Washington, D.C. The website further adds that “[i]n fulfilling its national mission role via training and technical assistance, information dissemination, and exhibits and performances, the Clerc Center served over 36,000 people and disseminated approximately 600,000 educational products in 2004. In addition, the Clerc Center recorded over 4,500,000 visits to its website last year.”

Thus, a major path for you to support greater opportunities for deaf people – families, colleagues, children and untold generations of people who live, work and learn with us – is to help Gallaudet maintain and revitalize its commitment to serving our community. This entails your active involvement in the presidential search process.

What Can I Do to Be Involved?
There are several ways you can get involved in the presidential search process, namely:

Stay abreast of the formal process established to select the next president by monitoring updates on the Presidential Search Process website noted above.
Participate in the ongoing discussions about the criteria for the next president. Do you think he or she should be deaf? If so, say so. Go further, and discuss about the need for proven leadership experience in deaf related organizations and communities. There is an online discussion group about this topic that you can join by sending an email to gallynet-l-request@gallynet.org with the word ‘subscribe’ in the subject or body. You can also organize a discussion session through your local deaf community gatherings.
Reach out to Gallaudet University Alumni Association (GUAA), the National Association of the Deaf, and others who are part of the deaf community to let them know of your ideas, concerns, and expectations.
Encourage as many qualified deaf candidates to apply for the position as possible. The more such candidates apply for the position, the better the chance of selecting a deaf president that best serves our community.
Support the University through financial donations. Universities say that they pay careful attention to the views of those who contribute. Regardless, you can expect that students will be the primary beneficiary of your charitable contributions. The future direction of our community depends on the intellectual and leadership contributions of those students.
My Other Option Is To…?
Deciding whether or not to get involved in the presidential search process is your prerogative. If you do not get actively involved in the process for selecting the next Gallaudet president, the world will not stop rotating. A candidate will eventually be selected to fill the position. Gallaudet will continue to operate in some capacity.

It’s important to remember, though, that apathy will never be the most effective way to address issues affecting our community. Taking the bull by the horns is usually preferable to getting trampled on your back by the bull. After all, our experiences in tackling issues like audism and racism in our community have shown that it’s best to seize upon challenges and turn them into opportunities to discuss new approaches and new collaborations to achieve greater empowerment and better prospects for us all.

Continue Reading

Impact of Management By Intimidation

Impact of Management By Intimidation

We have read so much about “management by objectives” and “management by the seat of your pants” and their impact on organizations that they’ve become buzzwords. To the best of this author’s knowledge, our management literature has not yet addressed “management by intimidation” and its impact on organizations per se. The closest issue previously discussed in the literature was the eighth of W. Edwards Deming’s famous “Fourteen Points of Management” in Out of the Crisis (1986).

This article discusses the characteristics of management by intimidation and their impact on organizations.Overview
Management By Intimidation (MBI) is the practice of managing, or governing people based on fear. Most organizations have managers or leaders who employ MBI practices. Such practices are inconsistent with Deming’s eighth point of management Impact of Management By Intimidation which behooves contemporary management practitioners to “drive out fear” in order to make employees feel secure enough to express ideas and ask questions. Deming has steadfastly viewed management by fear as counter-productive to the long-term health of an organization because it prevents employees from acting in the organization’s best interests.

Common characteristics of MBI philosophy are:

– Use of Threats: MBI practitioners threaten or intimidate people to perform, not inspire people to do their best. Letters of warning, informal threats of dismissal, and informal requests to resign are some of the popular tactics used by MBI practitioners in organizations.Impact of Management By Intimidation Show of unchecked power is the basis for their operating philosophy.

– Ineffective Oversight Body: Members of the oversight body (e.g., board of directors) are carefully screened and hand-picked. The intent is to ensure that members who do not habitually question the activities of management are selected and retained. Such an ineffective oversight body gives MBI practitioners carte blanche to act administratively with unchecked powers. The body views auditors as necessary evils, rather than partners who assist its members in discharging their oversight responsibilities. The need to avoid micro-management is used as an excuse for this kind of hands-off oversight philosophy.

– Censored Communications: MBI practitioners do not like employees to communicate openly and frankly about their views on organizational matters. They manipulate communication channels to ensure that only positive things are said and written about the organizations to external parties. Employees who express unfavorable opinions about the working conditions are routinely reprimanded by superiors who subscribe to the MBI philosophy.Impact of Management By Intimidation Commitment to truth is nonexistent. Board members, external auditors, and regulators receive communications censored or sanitized by MBI practitioners to conceal the real organizational climate and culture.

– Self-Centeredness: MBI practitioners are self-centered leaders. They make decisions that are usually best for themselves, their favorite subordinates, their friends, and their business partners. Personal agendas are disguised as organizational agendas.

– Unchallenged Authority: MBI practitioners do not like their authority challenged or questioned by anyone. They have no compunction whatsoever in eliminating people who habitually challenge their authority.

– Lack of Accountability: MBI practitioners are the least accountable people in organizations. They are quick to take credit for successful initiatives, and equally quick to apportion blame on others for organizational failures. They are meticulous in building cases – real or imagined – against dispensable employees or scapegoats. MBI practitioners last long in organizations mainly because the culture of accountability is nonexistent.

– Lack of Transparency: MBI practices are not transparent to people who are not directly impacted by such practices. We either experience, or learn about them from colleagues who were affected by the practices. MBI practitioners are too concerned about leaving audit trails that they have adopted the practice of not documenting their activities as much as possible and tacitly asking their subordinates to do the same.

– Questionable Hiring Practices: MBI practitioners tend to ignore good personnel policies and resort to cronyism and nepotism in their hiring decisions.Impact of Management By Intimidation Covert tactics are used to ensure that friends and relatives are given preferential considerations. Ruse interviews are occasionally conducted just to satisfy legal requirements.

– Lack of Diversity: MBI practitioners preach but do not practice diversity. They develop policies, procedures, and plans that extol the virtues of diversity. They organize events intended to create the illusion that their organizations believe in diversity. A closer look will reveal that the people they surround themselves with in key leadership positions are not diverse. Lucrative positions, contracts, and bonuses are typically awarded to people who look, think, and act like them.

– Double Standards: Activities that are acceptable to MBI practitioners are not necessarily acceptable to ordinary employees. Double standards are consistently applied in organizations. It is acceptable for MBI practitioners to circumvent rules if it suits their whims, but employees who commit the acts are involuntarily terminated.

– Disdain for Independent Reviewers: MBI practitioners treat internal auditors, external auditors, and other independent reviewers with open disdain. They do not want anyone to review and criticize their activities, or the activities of their “trusted” employees. They operate under the illusion that their actions are beyond reproach and not subject to audit. MBI practitioners prefer to have “other people” audited or investigated so that they can get the ammunition to eliminate certain people and show that certain conducts cannot be tolerated. The philosophy of “trust but verify” is foreign to MBI practitioners.

– Management Myopia: MBI practitioners are inherently reactive managers. They like status quo. They dislike people who rock the boat or think outside the box. They rarely communicate their expectations to employees in a clear, unambiguous manner. They conduct periodic performance evaluations based on their moods at a particular time. Disliked employees are harshly criticized, and “trusted” employees are richly rewarded. MBI practitioners manage to survive for as long as possible to aggrandize themselves – not to ensure the long-term health of their organizations.

– Bliss in Feigned Ignorance: MBI practitioners find bliss in feigned ignorance. The less they know about bad things in their organization, the better for them. That is why they harbor visceral hatred for whistleblowers or employees they perceive as “bad news” messengers. They work hard to erect corporate buffers that will deter unfavorable news from reaching their attention. When confronted by the reality of things in their organizations, they are quick to use the standard excuse of “I didn’t know” or “I was not aware” of the problems and their associated risks.

Traditional managers might have employed some or even most of these MBI tactics in their leadership roles. Stress, insecurity, and “fear of getting caught”Impact of Management By Intimidation are common factors contributing to the adoption of MBI practices in organizations.


Impact of MBI Practices
MBI practices impact organizations in the following ways:

– Unmotivated Employees: Employees will not be sufficiently motivated to give their best or ‘go the extra mile’. They will do just enough to get back, giving their required 8 hours daily. Unmotivated employees will not feel bad about engaging in unproductive activities or sabotaging work to make their MBI superiors look bad.

– Overstressed Workforce: Employees will operate under enormous stress. They will work in constant fear of their MBI superiors, making it difficult for them to be consistently productive. Increased stress will adversely affect their health, family, and work habits.

– Non-enterprising Employees: Employees will get the feeling that they are not empowered to think and accomplish anything without the blessings of MBI practitioners. They will be fearful of expressing opinions or suggestions in meetings intended to solicit frank and helpful input. Corporate stance on employee empowerment will be viewed with skepticism.Impact of Management By Intimidation Employees will eventually start finding excuses to avoid involvement in synergistic corporate initiatives.

– High Employee Turnover: There will be high turnover of competent employees, especially the middle management positions all the way to the frontline staff positions. Affected employees will be those who were made scapegoats by MBI practitioners and those who decided to leave the unhealthy corporate culture of their organizations in order to preserve their integrity, health, sanity, and/or career.

– Inequitable Compensation: The “favored” or “trusted” employees will always get paid more than employees who are deemed expendable by MBI practitioners. Experience and qualifications will be irrelevant. The perception that some people are more equal than others will eventually percolate in the organization – causing bitterness and divisiveness among employees.

– Climate of Distrust: Employees will not trust MBI practitioners and vice versa. The climate of distrust will escalate to the point that working conditions become unhealthy and disruptive.

– Climate of Vindictiveness: Employees who dare to think outside the box or engage in whistle-blowing activities will be called names and punished by vindictive MBI practitioners. Such practitioners and their cohorts will not be afraid to flaunt their powers when it comes to exacting punishment on people they view as ‘disgruntled employees’. The absence of a system of checks and balances will promote this climate of vindictiveness in the organizations.

– Ineffective Dispute Resolution: Employee complaints and disputes will escalate. Offices established to handle such complaints or disputes in compliance with the equal employment opportunity and labor laws will be ineffective in achieving satisfactory resolutions. Such offices will usually report to MBI superiors who are themselves the subjects of escalating employee complaints. The feeling that wolves are set up to guard the henhouse will eventually pervade the organizations until employees sense that it is pointless to file formal grievances. Law suits will become the only recourse for victimized employees, and costly out-of-court settlements will be the standard solutions for the affected organizations.

– Fire-fighting Management: MBI practitioners will operate constantly in a crisis mode – putting out one fire after another in their organizations. All the organizational problems they attempt to put under the carpet will eventually come back to haunt them and their organizations.

– Hostile Audit Environment: Some internal auditors will feel they are risking their job security and external auditors will feel they are risking their engagement contracts when they audit the activities of MBI practitioners. The environment will be decidedly hostile for quality assurance work. MBI practitioners will be tenaciously uncooperative and obstructive. Poor audit trails will make the review process a Herculean task. Equally too, auditors’ access to members of an audit committee will be significantly curtailed.

– Disregard for Established Controls: MBI practitioners feel that controls are established to be conveniently circumvented. They will consistently exhibit little or no regard for established controls. They view preventive and detective controls as major threats to their jobs. Thus, opportunities to commit occupational frauds will abound, and anti-fraud measures will not find fertile grounds in the organizations.

– Unethical Culture: The environment will foster a corporate culture where anything goes. Ethical misconducts will be widely tolerated. Tone from the top will essentially be perceived to mean that trusted employees can get away with anything except murder. Employees caught and prosecuted for unethical and illegal acts will rationalize that their MBI superiors were engaging in similar improprieties. This will eventually attract the keen eyes and ears of local, state, and federal regulators.

It usually takes front-page news of organizational problems associated with MBI practices before an organization feels the need to change its culture. In some cases, the efforts to change are genuine. Conversely, in some cases, the efforts to change are purely cosmetics. If anything, the recent corporate scandals involving Enron, WorldCom, and others have taught us that MBI practices are inconsistent with the 21st Century management best practices. Any benefits from MBI practices will always be short lived.


Why Organizations Need to Address MBI Practices
The main reasons why organizations need to eliminate MBI practices are two-fold. First, the practices do not maximize employee productivity, ensure operational efficiency, and enhance organizational effectiveness. Instead, such practices tend to turn employees into major destabilizing forces for organizations.

Second, MBI practices are not in compliance with the federal regulations. For instance, Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) requires the adoption of a code of ethical conduct or formal performance standards with the necessary controls to help organizations in promoting: (1) honest and ethical conducts; (2) accurate and timely disclosure of public financial reports; (3) compliance with regulations; (4) internal reporting of ethical code violation; and, (5) accountability for adherence to the code of ethical conduct. Similarly, Sections 301, 806, and 1107 of SOX address the following regulatory matters:

– Require organizations to establish procedures for the receipt, retention, and treatment of complaints and the confidential anonymous submission by employees on accounting, internal controls, and auditing matters.

– Grant employees the right to sue their employers for retaliation by filing a formal charge with the US Department of Labor.

– Provide for criminal penalties, including up to 10 years in prison for retaliation against employees or whistle-blowers.

In addition, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines enacted in 1991 by the US Congress state that organizations are liable to sentencing and fines for federal offenses connected with securities, bribery, embezzlement, fraud, money laundering, and other criminal business activities. The Guidelines hold that an organization operates only through its agents – usually managers – and, is, therefore, liable for the offenses committed by its managers. The Guidelines are intended to achieve (1) just punishment; (2) sufficient deterrence; and (3) encourage the development of internal mechanisms to prevent, identify and report on criminal behaviors in organizations. Furthermore, a recent Bill/Study initiated by Senator Grassley made specific formal recommendations for strengthening transparency, governance, and accountability in the non-public, not-for-profit sector.


Implications for Auditors
Internal auditors must realize that MBI practices are detrimental to organizational effectiveness. Their risk-based reviews should assist their organizations in identifying and eliminating such practices. This entails performing assurance and consulting engagements with independence and objectivity. Job security should be made secondary to compliance with the audit standards and professional code of ethics.

Given the hostile environment they operate in, internal auditors should be prepared to resign from their positions if it is the only option to make their audit observations known to the internal and external stakeholders. Of course, cultivating a good working relationship with members of the audit committee is of paramount importance in the fight against pervasive MBI practices.

Similarly, external auditors should not let contracts or monetary issues cloud their independence and professional judgment. They should know that weak internal controls contributed by pervasive MBI practice can generate fraudulent financial statements and opportunities for other types of occupational frauds.

In addition, internal and external auditors should avoid credibility problems by not engaging in MBI practices or appearing to turn a blind eye to such practices during internal control reviews. Thus, self-assessment is a critical step toward objective reviews and an effective fight against MBI practices. Lack of credibility has been known to hamper quality audit work.

Finally, the Enron and WorldCom cases showed that internal and external auditors can pay heavy prices if they know but fail to act on red flags in auditable areas.


Conclusion
We live in a democratic society. MBI practices are not in harmony with our democratic ideals or with the principles that undergird our hard fought democracy. Such practices benefit few self-centered leaders at the expense of organizational effectiveness. Thus, it is time to take a ‘reality check’. Three important questions to ask are:

(1) Is our organization engaged in wide-spread MBI practices?
(2) Are we contributing to such practices?
(3) What can we do to help eliminate such harmful practices?

The evils of MBI practices reinforce the importance of proper management of employees as human beings with feelings; and compliance with governmental regulations. Internal and external stakeholders who value successful organizational performance, ethical culture, and social responsibility should join hands in fighting against such practices in their organizations. This requires a proactive mindset because a stitch in time saves nine.

Perception about direct or indirect involvement in MBI practices will not allow anyone or any group of individuals to wage effective fight against MBI practices. Credibility is, thus, an important weapon in the anti-MBI fight. Organizations that are decisively proactive in rooting out MBI practices will be the ones left standing on a solid footing in the 21st century where only the fittest survives in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.

We have read so much about “management by objectives” and “management by the seat of your pants” and their impact on organizations that they’ve become buzzwords. To the best of this author’s knowledge, our management literature has not yet addressed “management by intimidation” and its impact on organizations per se. The closest issue previously discussed in the literature was the eighth of W. Edwards Deming’s famous “Fourteen Points of Management” in Out of the Crisis (1986).

This article discusses the characteristics of management by intimidation and their impact on organizations.Overview
Management By Intimidation (MBI) is the practice of managing, or governing people based on fear. Most organizations have managers or leaders who employ MBI practices. Such practices are inconsistent with Deming’s eighth point of management Impact of Management By Intimidation which behooves contemporary management practitioners to “drive out fear” in order to make employees feel secure enough to express ideas and ask questions. Deming has steadfastly viewed management by fear as counter-productive to the long-term health of an organization because it prevents employees from acting in the organization’s best interests.

Common characteristics of MBI philosophy are:

– Use of Threats: MBI practitioners threaten or intimidate people to perform, not inspire people to do their best. Letters of warning, informal threats of dismissal, and informal requests to resign are some of the popular tactics used by MBI practitioners in organizations.Impact of Management By Intimidation Show of unchecked power is the basis for their operating philosophy.

– Ineffective Oversight Body: Members of the oversight body (e.g., board of directors) are carefully screened and hand-picked. The intent is to ensure that members who do not habitually question the activities of management are selected and retained. Such an ineffective oversight body gives MBI practitioners carte blanche to act administratively with unchecked powers. The body views auditors as necessary evils, rather than partners who assist its members in discharging their oversight responsibilities. The need to avoid micro-management is used as an excuse for this kind of hands-off oversight philosophy.

– Censored Communications: MBI practitioners do not like employees to communicate openly and frankly about their views on organizational matters. They manipulate communication channels to ensure that only positive things are said and written about the organizations to external parties. Employees who express unfavorable opinions about the working conditions are routinely reprimanded by superiors who subscribe to the MBI philosophy.Impact of Management By Intimidation Commitment to truth is nonexistent. Board members, external auditors, and regulators receive communications censored or sanitized by MBI practitioners to conceal the real organizational climate and culture.

– Self-Centeredness: MBI practitioners are self-centered leaders. They make decisions that are usually best for themselves, their favorite subordinates, their friends, and their business partners. Personal agendas are disguised as organizational agendas.

– Unchallenged Authority: MBI practitioners do not like their authority challenged or questioned by anyone. They have no compunction whatsoever in eliminating people who habitually challenge their authority.

– Lack of Accountability: MBI practitioners are the least accountable people in organizations. They are quick to take credit for successful initiatives, and equally quick to apportion blame on others for organizational failures. They are meticulous in building cases – real or imagined – against dispensable employees or scapegoats. MBI practitioners last long in organizations mainly because the culture of accountability is nonexistent.

– Lack of Transparency: MBI practices are not transparent to people who are not directly impacted by such practices. We either experience, or learn about them from colleagues who were affected by the practices. MBI practitioners are too concerned about leaving audit trails that they have adopted the practice of not documenting their activities as much as possible and tacitly asking their subordinates to do the same.

– Questionable Hiring Practices: MBI practitioners tend to ignore good personnel policies and resort to cronyism and nepotism in their hiring decisions.Impact of Management By Intimidation Covert tactics are used to ensure that friends and relatives are given preferential considerations. Ruse interviews are occasionally conducted just to satisfy legal requirements.

– Lack of Diversity: MBI practitioners preach but do not practice diversity. They develop policies, procedures, and plans that extol the virtues of diversity. They organize events intended to create the illusion that their organizations believe in diversity. A closer look will reveal that the people they surround themselves with in key leadership positions are not diverse. Lucrative positions, contracts, and bonuses are typically awarded to people who look, think, and act like them.

– Double Standards: Activities that are acceptable to MBI practitioners are not necessarily acceptable to ordinary employees. Double standards are consistently applied in organizations. It is acceptable for MBI practitioners to circumvent rules if it suits their whims, but employees who commit the acts are involuntarily terminated.

– Disdain for Independent Reviewers: MBI practitioners treat internal auditors, external auditors, and other independent reviewers with open disdain. They do not want anyone to review and criticize their activities, or the activities of their “trusted” employees. They operate under the illusion that their actions are beyond reproach and not subject to audit. MBI practitioners prefer to have “other people” audited or investigated so that they can get the ammunition to eliminate certain people and show that certain conducts cannot be tolerated. The philosophy of “trust but verify” is foreign to MBI practitioners.

– Management Myopia: MBI practitioners are inherently reactive managers. They like status quo. They dislike people who rock the boat or think outside the box. They rarely communicate their expectations to employees in a clear, unambiguous manner. They conduct periodic performance evaluations based on their moods at a particular time. Disliked employees are harshly criticized, and “trusted” employees are richly rewarded. MBI practitioners manage to survive for as long as possible to aggrandize themselves – not to ensure the long-term health of their organizations.

– Bliss in Feigned Ignorance: MBI practitioners find bliss in feigned ignorance. The less they know about bad things in their organization, the better for them. That is why they harbor visceral hatred for whistleblowers or employees they perceive as “bad news” messengers. They work hard to erect corporate buffers that will deter unfavorable news from reaching their attention. When confronted by the reality of things in their organizations, they are quick to use the standard excuse of “I didn’t know” or “I was not aware” of the problems and their associated risks.

Traditional managers might have employed some or even most of these MBI tactics in their leadership roles. Stress, insecurity, and “fear of getting caught”Impact of Management By Intimidation are common factors contributing to the adoption of MBI practices in organizations.


Impact of MBI Practices
MBI practices impact organizations in the following ways:

– Unmotivated Employees: Employees will not be sufficiently motivated to give their best or ‘go the extra mile’. They will do just enough to get back, giving their required 8 hours daily. Unmotivated employees will not feel bad about engaging in unproductive activities or sabotaging work to make their MBI superiors look bad.

– Overstressed Workforce: Employees will operate under enormous stress. They will work in constant fear of their MBI superiors, making it difficult for them to be consistently productive. Increased stress will adversely affect their health, family, and work habits.

– Non-enterprising Employees: Employees will get the feeling that they are not empowered to think and accomplish anything without the blessings of MBI practitioners. They will be fearful of expressing opinions or suggestions in meetings intended to solicit frank and helpful input. Corporate stance on employee empowerment will be viewed with skepticism.Impact of Management By Intimidation Employees will eventually start finding excuses to avoid involvement in synergistic corporate initiatives.

– High Employee Turnover: There will be high turnover of competent employees, especially the middle management positions all the way to the frontline staff positions. Affected employees will be those who were made scapegoats by MBI practitioners and those who decided to leave the unhealthy corporate culture of their organizations in order to preserve their integrity, health, sanity, and/or career.

– Inequitable Compensation: The “favored” or “trusted” employees will always get paid more than employees who are deemed expendable by MBI practitioners. Experience and qualifications will be irrelevant. The perception that some people are more equal than others will eventually percolate in the organization – causing bitterness and divisiveness among employees.

– Climate of Distrust: Employees will not trust MBI practitioners and vice versa. The climate of distrust will escalate to the point that working conditions become unhealthy and disruptive.

– Climate of Vindictiveness: Employees who dare to think outside the box or engage in whistle-blowing activities will be called names and punished by vindictive MBI practitioners. Such practitioners and their cohorts will not be afraid to flaunt their powers when it comes to exacting punishment on people they view as ‘disgruntled employees’. The absence of a system of checks and balances will promote this climate of vindictiveness in the organizations.

– Ineffective Dispute Resolution: Employee complaints and disputes will escalate. Offices established to handle such complaints or disputes in compliance with the equal employment opportunity and labor laws will be ineffective in achieving satisfactory resolutions. Such offices will usually report to MBI superiors who are themselves the subjects of escalating employee complaints. The feeling that wolves are set up to guard the henhouse will eventually pervade the organizations until employees sense that it is pointless to file formal grievances. Law suits will become the only recourse for victimized employees, and costly out-of-court settlements will be the standard solutions for the affected organizations.

– Fire-fighting Management: MBI practitioners will operate constantly in a crisis mode – putting out one fire after another in their organizations. All the organizational problems they attempt to put under the carpet will eventually come back to haunt them and their organizations.

– Hostile Audit Environment: Some internal auditors will feel they are risking their job security and external auditors will feel they are risking their engagement contracts when they audit the activities of MBI practitioners. The environment will be decidedly hostile for quality assurance work. MBI practitioners will be tenaciously uncooperative and obstructive. Poor audit trails will make the review process a Herculean task. Equally too, auditors’ access to members of an audit committee will be significantly curtailed.

– Disregard for Established Controls: MBI practitioners feel that controls are established to be conveniently circumvented. They will consistently exhibit little or no regard for established controls. They view preventive and detective controls as major threats to their jobs. Thus, opportunities to commit occupational frauds will abound, and anti-fraud measures will not find fertile grounds in the organizations.

– Unethical Culture: The environment will foster a corporate culture where anything goes. Ethical misconducts will be widely tolerated. Tone from the top will essentially be perceived to mean that trusted employees can get away with anything except murder. Employees caught and prosecuted for unethical and illegal acts will rationalize that their MBI superiors were engaging in similar improprieties. This will eventually attract the keen eyes and ears of local, state, and federal regulators.

It usually takes front-page news of organizational problems associated with MBI practices before an organization feels the need to change its culture. In some cases, the efforts to change are genuine. Conversely, in some cases, the efforts to change are purely cosmetics. If anything, the recent corporate scandals involving Enron, WorldCom, and others have taught us that MBI practices are inconsistent with the 21st Century management best practices. Any benefits from MBI practices will always be short lived.


Why Organizations Need to Address MBI Practices
The main reasons why organizations need to eliminate MBI practices are two-fold. First, the practices do not maximize employee productivity, ensure operational efficiency, and enhance organizational effectiveness. Instead, such practices tend to turn employees into major destabilizing forces for organizations.

Second, MBI practices are not in compliance with the federal regulations. For instance, Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) requires the adoption of a code of ethical conduct or formal performance standards with the necessary controls to help organizations in promoting: (1) honest and ethical conducts; (2) accurate and timely disclosure of public financial reports; (3) compliance with regulations; (4) internal reporting of ethical code violation; and, (5) accountability for adherence to the code of ethical conduct. Similarly, Sections 301, 806, and 1107 of SOX address the following regulatory matters:

– Require organizations to establish procedures for the receipt, retention, and treatment of complaints and the confidential anonymous submission by employees on accounting, internal controls, and auditing matters.

– Grant employees the right to sue their employers for retaliation by filing a formal charge with the US Department of Labor.

– Provide for criminal penalties, including up to 10 years in prison for retaliation against employees or whistle-blowers.

In addition, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines enacted in 1991 by the US Congress state that organizations are liable to sentencing and fines for federal offenses connected with securities, bribery, embezzlement, fraud, money laundering, and other criminal business activities. The Guidelines hold that an organization operates only through its agents – usually managers – and, is, therefore, liable for the offenses committed by its managers. The Guidelines are intended to achieve (1) just punishment; (2) sufficient deterrence; and (3) encourage the development of internal mechanisms to prevent, identify and report on criminal behaviors in organizations. Furthermore, a recent Bill/Study initiated by Senator Grassley made specific formal recommendations for strengthening transparency, governance, and accountability in the non-public, not-for-profit sector.


Implications for Auditors
Internal auditors must realize that MBI practices are detrimental to organizational effectiveness. Their risk-based reviews should assist their organizations in identifying and eliminating such practices. This entails performing assurance and consulting engagements with independence and objectivity. Job security should be made secondary to compliance with the audit standards and professional code of ethics.

Given the hostile environment they operate in, internal auditors should be prepared to resign from their positions if it is the only option to make their audit observations known to the internal and external stakeholders. Of course, cultivating a good working relationship with members of the audit committee is of paramount importance in the fight against pervasive MBI practices.

Similarly, external auditors should not let contracts or monetary issues cloud their independence and professional judgment. They should know that weak internal controls contributed by pervasive MBI practice can generate fraudulent financial statements and opportunities for other types of occupational frauds.

In addition, internal and external auditors should avoid credibility problems by not engaging in MBI practices or appearing to turn a blind eye to such practices during internal control reviews. Thus, self-assessment is a critical step toward objective reviews and an effective fight against MBI practices. Lack of credibility has been known to hamper quality audit work.

Finally, the Enron and WorldCom cases showed that internal and external auditors can pay heavy prices if they know but fail to act on red flags in auditable areas.


Conclusion
We live in a democratic society. MBI practices are not in harmony with our democratic ideals or with the principles that undergird our hard fought democracy. Such practices benefit few self-centered leaders at the expense of organizational effectiveness. Thus, it is time to take a ‘reality check’. Three important questions to ask are:

(1) Is our organization engaged in wide-spread MBI practices?
(2) Are we contributing to such practices?
(3) What can we do to help eliminate such harmful practices?

The evils of MBI practices reinforce the importance of proper management of employees as human beings with feelings; and compliance with governmental regulations. Internal and external stakeholders who value successful organizational performance, ethical culture, and social responsibility should join hands in fighting against such practices in their organizations. This requires a proactive mindset because a stitch in time saves nine.

Perception about direct or indirect involvement in MBI practices will not allow anyone or any group of individuals to wage effective fight against MBI practices. Credibility is, thus, an important weapon in the anti-MBI fight. Organizations that are decisively proactive in rooting out MBI practices will be the ones left standing on a solid footing in the 21st century where only the fittest survives in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.

Continue Reading

Terms of Endeafment

Terms of Endeafment

One of the several reasons students do not like Dr. Fernandes, the president-select of Gallaudet University, is that she is “not deaf enough.”  This is a pretty ambiguous term, so I googled it and got 91,800 hits (It will be 91,801 when or if this article is printed). There is even a book titled: “Not Deaf Enough.Terms of Endeafment ” I thought since cyberspace is already overcrowded with discussion of this term, I should leave it alone. But, misery loves company so I decided to write on.  To start with, I dug up some old stuff.

The deaf were simply deaf or hard of hearing until the 1970s when we were labeled “hearing impaired.” This term, according to those who used it, encompassed all people with any kind of hearing problem. However, the novelty of this grandiose term faded fast. This was also the time when deaf identity along with the concept of ASL as a bona fide language was taking shape. Thus the term ‘hearing impaired’ was rejected by the Deaf community. “We are deaf,” it declared, “not impaired anywhere.” The term died its natural death in America, but is very popular abroad – just like Marlboros.


The bourgeoning Deaf community, like any minority, began to stratify itself. Not all deaf people are alike and soon there were labels for various sub-groups that composed the deaf community. Many people take credit for the nomenclature for the four sub-groups identified within the deaf community.Terms of Endeafment Since no one has filed copyright for authorship, I will leave this issue alone and simply say that Deaf people coined the following terms.

The first group, of course, is Deaf with the capital D. They have their own cultural and linguistic identity. Their families and friends are Deaf. Their contact with the hearing community is limited to working with them or living in their neighborhood or associating with parents and siblings who happened to be hearing. This group considers itself a pure “Brahman Deaf” group and calls itself deafie.

The second group is deaf people with hearing loss, but who are not culturally deaf. This group is comprised of persons who are late deafened, associate with hearing people and use signed English. According to deafies, this group is not “really deaf” or not deaf enough, because its members think and act like hearing people.Terms of Endeafment This group is labeled heafie – half deaf, half hearing. The sign for heafies is same as hearing, except the place of sign is in front of the forehead.

The next group is of hearing people who by birth or by association have binding ties with the Deaf community. Hearing children of deaf couples (Coda), hearing family members of families with a large number of deaf people, some interpreters and those who work closely with the deaf and,  more  importantly, think like them are known as “dearies.”  They are hearing, but they think like deaf , use ASL fluently and socialize with the deaf most of the time. Interestingly, dearies, despite their hearing, are more accepted in the Deaf community than the heafies (even though it is the latter of these that shares their hearing loss).

Is that it?

No. I forgot the vast majority. That is hearing people. No need to define them. They make up the 99.99% of the world population. They are simply “hearies.” They may sign or not and they may love deaf people not. They are just hearies.

Such stratification is not limited to the deaf community. All minority groups have sub-groups. Black people have their Uncle Toms and pure Blacks. The Hindus have, of course, their caste system.  “I am different than my neighbor” is an old feeling that humans had ever since they hit Mother Earth.

Deafness is a low-incident disability (only 1 in 1000 people is deaf). We are a very small minority and since our disability is invisible, the general public knows about us only when we use signs (or, perhaps, carry a sign proclaiming deafness). Since we are small, we need to be united. Every member of deaf community has to work together. This unity was visible in 1988 when, according to Jack Gannon, the world heard Gallaudet.

Since then, we have been fragmenting. This fragmentation will hurt us, it is already hurting us. We blame hearing people for not being tolerant, but we have become intolerant ourselves. The vicious language dished out by bloggers showed how much of a depressing rift there is among us.

Deaf is deaf. We can discuss stratification for fun or for intellectual exercise, but when it comes to dealing with real life situations, let us be ONE!

Continue Reading