Antisocial Personality Disorder: Causes, Effects, Treatment

Antisocial Personality Disorder: Causes, Effects, Treatment Antisocial Personality Disorder Crystal Fulp Antisocial Personality Disorder Personality disorders affect many people in society, but are understood by few. Personality disorders are defined as a deeply ingrained, maladaptive and specific problem behavior or pattern. Such problem patterns typically manifest themselves by early adolescence and have an impairing impact on the person’s functioning in life with a particular emphasis on the impact that such disorders have on their relationships and quality of life (Comer, 2014). There are a total of ten personality disorders that have been categorized into three distinct clusters. Disorders under the first cluster (cluster A) are said to be odd personality disorders because they cause people to exhibit behaviors that can be seen as â€Å"odd† or â€Å"eccentric†. Disorders listed under the second cluster (cluster B) are said to be dramatic personality disorders because they cause people to exhibit overly dramatic, emotional, or aggressive behaviors. Disorders listed under the final cluster (cl uster C) are said to be anxious personality disorders because they cause people to behave in overly anxious or fearful ways (Comer, 2014). All ten of the personality disorders can be devastating, but the dramatic personality disorders are marked by behaviors that are overly dramatic, emotional, and/or aggressive. The dramatic personality disorders are more commonly diagnosed than any other personality disorder. However, the antisocial personality and borderline personality disorders have gained more attention from researchers because the actions of those diagnosed tend to effect more people (Comer, 2014). The remainder of this discussion will cover the Antisocial Personality Disorder in detail. The disorder will be defined along with the most common symptom configurations, which will lead to a discussion about the historical and current etiological causes of the disorder. The final portion of the discussion will cover treatment modalities. Definition of Disorder Symptom Configuration Antisocial personality disorder is defined as exhibiting a pervasive pattern of behavior where someone disregards and violates the rights of others (APA 2013). This disorder can only be diagnosed if the patient/client exhibits behaviors that satisfy certain criterion. The criterion used to diagnose this disorder is as follows: Source: (APA, 2013) The essential feature of Antisocial Personality Disorder is exhibiting a complete disregard for the rights of others that lead to a violation of the aforementioned rights (APA, 2013). People with Antisocial personality disorder are very deceitful and manipulative. They will go to extravagant lengths in order to control others or get them to do what it is they want them to do. These people also exhibit an inability to plan ahead and a lack a moral conscience. Simply put, these people do not feel remorse if their actions cause any harm or discomfort to other people. They tend to rationalize their behaviors by saying, â€Å"They were stupid for doing that, so they deserved what they got† or something similar (Comer, 2014). People with this disorder may also exhibit consistent irresponsible behaviors such as failing to obtain and keep employment, paying child support, paying off debts, or even appropriately caring for themselves or others (including their own children or spouses). It’s important to note that these behaviors must not be confused with the antisocial behaviors exclusive to schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (APA, 2014). It’s also common for people who suffer from this disorder to be more likely to exhibit criminal behavior than others. In fact, a study found that at least thirty percent of incarcerated individuals exhibit symptoms consistent with Antisocial Personality Disorder (Comer, 2014). They are also much more likely to abuse alcohol or other controlled substances. In fact, people with Antisocial Personality Disorder are much more likely to participate in risky behaviors than the average population (Comer, 2014) Antisocial Personality Disorder: A Case Example It can be hard to imagine what this disorder would look like in the real world. Imagine a twenty-two year old man named Jacob. Jacob is currently serving a five year sentence in a minimum security penitentiary for assault and felony larceny. Jacob has a long disciplinary record both inside and outside of the prison. Since he’s been incarcerated he’s been involved in numerous physical altercations and is known to be irritable and prone to exhibiting aggressive behavior when it’s not appropriate. He’s also been cited for possessing drugs and alcohol inside the prison (Black, 1999; Comer, 2014; Oliviera-Souz et al., 2008). Jacob is being referred to the prison psychologist because of his most recent offense. In the past month he has been found guilty of an assault during which he beat a fellow inmate with a lunch tray. When the psychologist asked Jacob why he reacted that way he said, â€Å"He shouldn’t have been in my way. He got what he deserved.† Jacob didn’t exhibit any guilt or remorse for what he had done. Fallowing this discussion Jacob told the psychologist about his actions as a teenager. Jacob admitted to being involved in criminal activities and consuming alcohol while underage. He also admitted to breaking into places and selling controlled substances. He went on to talk about how he used to hurt animals. When asked if he felt bad about it he responded that he didn’t and viewed it as more of a game than anything else (Black, 1999; Comer, 2014; Oliviera-Souz et al., 2008). Over the next few months, the psychologist notices that Jacob often acts without thinking of the consequences and treats his criminality as a game of wit. He’s also highly irresponsible and lacks a moral conscience as indicated by his past and present crimes. The psychologist concludes that Jacob is exhibiting behaviors consistent with Antisocial Personality Disorder and refers to him to the prison’s treatment program (Black, 1999; Comer, 2014; Oliviera-Souz et al., 2008). Causes of Antisocial Personality Disorder General Information about Causes There doesn’t seem to be a single cause of Antisocial Personality Disorder. In fact, there seem to be many different possibilities presented from many different angles, especially in relations to genetics and certain environmental factors. For the sake of time, this discussion will focus on the behavioral/cognitive and biological perspectives on this disorder. However, it seems important to note that lower socioeconomic status has been correlated with the development of this disorder (APA, 2013). Common Biological Perspectives Genetics plays an important role in the development of Antisocial Personal Disorder. People who had parents who were diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder are much more likely to develop the disorder themselves (APA, 2013). Researchers have also found serotonin levels to be correlated with Antisocial Personality Disorder (Black, 2014). However, this finding really isn’t that surprising when one considers that significantly lower serotonin levels have been found in regards to other psychological disorders such as depression (Comer, 2014). Behavior/Cognitive Causes of Antisocial Personality Disorder There are many possible behavioral causes of Antisocial Personality disorder. However, behavioral researchers believe that there is a correlation between antisocial personality behaviors and modeling. Simply put, these researchers believe that children can learn antisocial behaviors from their parents (Comer, 2014). After all, children learn from watching the people around them and then imitating that behavior (as indicated by Bandura’s Social Learning Theory). Furthermore, researchers have also found a correlation between antisocial behaviors and people who had lived in violent households. It has been found that children who lived in households where violence and aggression was a common occurrence are more likely to exhibit antisocial behaviors than children who didn’t grow up in violent and/aggressive households. Children who lived with parents who abused alcohol and/or controlled substances have also been found to be more likely to exhibit antisocial behaviors (Black , 2014). It’s also important to note that child abuse has been correlated with the development of antisocial personality disorder. Simply put, children who are abused are much more likely to exhibit antisocial behaviors than children who weren’t abused (Black, 2014). This research indicates that parental modeling and disturbed or volatile environments could be connected with the development of Antisocial Personality Disorder. Cognitive theorists point to society’s individualism and egocentrism as a possible cause. People with Antisocial Personality Disorder have attitudes that continually trivialize the needs of others (Elwood et al., 2004). There is an argument among cognitive researchers that these attitudes are much more prevalent in society than people believe them to be (Comer, 2014). Differential Diagnosis Considerations for Antisocial Personality Disorder Personality Traits People with Antisocial Personality Disorder exhibit very specific personality traits. These personality traits serve to help them achieve their ends at whatever cost as they are only concerned with their own wants/needs. People with this disorder have been known to exhibit a complete lack of empathy (APA, 2013). They may also be callous and cynical. People with this disorder may also have an inflated or arrogant self appraisal along with being cocky and opinionated. These people tend to have a superficial charm that draws people and can appear to be very intelligent and informed to others (APA, 2013) Ages and Populations Effected In order to be diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder one must be at least eighteen years of age, however, antisocial behaviors consistent with conduct disorders must be present prior to fifteen years of age. Antisocial behaviors consistent with conducts disorders include aggression towards people or animals, theft, deceitfulness, destruction of property, or rule violations (APA, 2013). These behaviors violate the social norms of adolescence’s aged fifteen and under and as such a history of such behaviors is required to diagnose someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder. This disorder typically develops by late adolescence or early adulthood. One interesting phenomena related to this disorder is that the symptoms usually even out by forty years of age. That would mean that this disorder begins to develop in one’s adolescence, peek in their mid-twenties and thirties, and decrease in intensity by age forty. It’s also important to note that men are much m ore likely to be diagnosed with this disorder than women (APA, 2013). Dual Diagnosis Patterns Diagnosing Antisocial Personality Disorder can be very tricky under the best circumstances. A diagnosis is only given to someone who is at least eighteen years of age and has a history of behaviors indicative of conduct disorders. In the event that an adult doesn’t meet the criteria to be diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder they may be diagnosed with a conduct disorder (APA, 2013). Diagnosing this disorder is made even more difficult when substance abuse is involved. In these cases, a diagnosis is only given if there is a history of antisocial behaviors in the client/patient’s adolescence and childhood. If both the substance abuse and the antisocial personality behaviors existed together in childhood then it’s necessary to evaluate the client/patient for both substance abuse disorder and antisocial personality disorder (APA, 2013). Clinicians should also keep in mind that the features of Antisocial Personality Disorder are similar to that of Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder. This diagnosis can only be given if the antisocial behaviors aren’t exclusive to either schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. To that end, the criterion for this disorder can be easily confused with other disorders, so it’s important to pay close attention to the patient’s history (or lack thereof) of antisocial behaviors (APA, 2013). Treatment Modalities for Antisocial Personality Disorder Treating personality disorders can be very difficult to do. In relation to Antisocial Personality Disorder the available treatments range from being completely ineffective to only moderately effective, this doesn’t result in an overly positive prognosis (Comer, 2014). There are currently three treatments available for this disorder. One form of treatment is medications. Certain therapies have also been shown to be somewhat effective in treating this disorder, specifically cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) and psychotherapy (Comer, 2014). Using medications to treat any psychological disorder is a trial and error process at best. Using psychotropic drugs to treat Antisocial Personality Disorder is no different. At this point, the Food and Drug Administration (ADA) has not approved any drug to be used to treat this disorder specifically (Mayo Clinic, 2013). However, psychiatrists have found that some drugs can help alleviate the symptoms of this disorder. These drugs tend to be the atypical (newer) antipsychotic drugs. These drugs have been found to be moderately effective in some clients/patients (Comer, 2014). Psychotherapy, otherwise known as talk therapy can also be used to help treat this disorder; however, this treatment approach isn’t effective in all situation and patients/clients. In fact, this treatment approach will only be effective if the patient/client realizes and/or admits that they contribute to their own problems. This type of therapy can be administered in a clinical one-on-one setting or in a group setting (Mayo Clinic, 2013). Cognitive-Behavior Therapy (CBT) has been shown to be moderately effective in the treatment of Antisocial Personality Disorder (Hoermann, Zupannick, Dombeck, 2014). Cognitive/behavior theorists argue that the only way to change dysfunctional behavior is to change the dysfunctional thought behind it. After all, according to cognitive-behavior theories one’s cognitions lead to their behaviors be them good or bad. CBT not only focuses on changing dysfunctional thoughts, but it also seeks to challenge the dysfunctional core beliefs underlying their dysfunctional thought patterns (Hoermann, Zupannick, Dombeck, 2014). CBT therapists work with people on accurately interpreting the world around them and then changing or redirecting dysfunctional thought patterns (Hoermann, Zupannick, Dombeck, 2014). For people with Antisocial Personality Disorder, CBT would involve trying to help these patients/clients develop impulse control and a moral conscience (Comer, 2014). The problem with treating this disorder is that the people who have it aren’t very likely to seek treatment out for themselves because they don’t see their behavior as a problem (Comer, 2014). In fact, most people with this disorder that are in treatment originally went to see a mental health professional for a different reason entirely. There are also a large number of people with this disorder who don’t receive treatment until forced to by the criminal justice system as a part of their probation/parole or incarceration programs (Comer, 2014). Antisocial Personality Disorder Construct Antisocial Personality Disorder is one of the most commonly researched personality disorders, but there is still much to be discovered (Comer, 2014). For instance, the DSM-V states that the symptoms of this disorder tend to level out by forty years of age (APA, 2013). Why does that occur? Do certain neurochemicals, such as serotonin behave differently by age forty? The DSM-V also states that the criminality present in those with this disorder can sometimes be confused with â€Å"normal† criminal behavior (criminal behavior not associated with this disorder specifically). Other than the criterion listed, what criterion can clinicians use to help differentiate the two? This may be my own point of view only, but the criterion used to diagnose this disorder seems convoluted and easily confused with the criterion for other mental disorders (APA, 2013). Conclusion Antisocial Personality Disorder is a very serious personality disorder that can have devastating consequences for those who have it. This disorder makes it hard to do basic things, such as form and maintain healthy relationships and stay within the boundaries of both society and the law (APA, 2014). Unfortunately, most people don’t realize that it’s a problem until they are either incarcerated or forced into treatment by judges. Even then most people don’t consider it to be a problem and the disorder in general is made difficult to treat because of the personality traits and attitudes of the people who have it (Comer, 2014). What is clear is that more research needs to be done in the hope that further research can uncover a more suitable treatment method that will greatly increase the quality of life for people who have this disorder. References American Psychiatric Association, American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association. Black,D.W., Larson,C.L. (1999). Bad boys, bad men: Confronting antisocial personality disorder. New York: Oxford University Press. Black,D. (2014). What Causes Antisocial Personality Disorder? RetrievedApril15, 2014, from http://psychcentral.com/lib/what-causes-antisocial-personality-disorder/000652 Comer,R.J. (2014). Abnormal psychology. New York, NY: Worth Pub. Elwood,C.E., Poythress,N.G., Douglas,K.S. (2004). Evaluation of the Hare P-SCAN in a non-clinical population. Personality and Individual Differences. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00156-9 Hoermann,S., Zupannick,C., Dombeck,M. (2005). Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Personality Disorders (CBT). RetrievedApril15, 2014, from http://sevencounties.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=docid=41578cn=8 Mayo Clinic (2013, April 12). Antisocial personality disorder Treatments and drugs. RetrievedApril15, 2014, from http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/basics/treatment/con-20027920 Oliveira-Souza,R.D., Moll,J., Ignà ¡cio,F.A., Hare,R.D. (2008). Psychopathy in a Civil Psychiatric Outpatient Sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4). doi:10.1177/0093854807310853

Best Buy Co., Inc. Customer-Centricity Essay

The consumer electronics giant, Best Buy, was first established in 1966 with a single location and a staff of three in St. Paul, Minnesota, selling audio equipment targeted at 18-25 year old males. Initially Sound of Music/Best Buy grew through acquisition, expanding to nine locations in the Twin Cities area by 1978. The name, Best Buy, and expanded product line, ranging from audio and video equipment to large appliances, were a result of a â€Å"best buy† sale of damaged inventory at bargain prices in 1981. In the mid-1980s, Best Buy launched superstores similar to those of their main competitor, Circuit City and expanded by 15 stores between 1985-86. In 1989, Best Buy launched itself as a self-service, value-store staffed with a salaried sales force to provide a no-pressure shopping experience. This approach resulted in Best Buy becoming the second largest electronics retailer. By 1995, Best Buy was opening an average of 35 new stores annually and in 2000, the retailer respo nded to the market by launching BestBuy.com. Best Buy attributes some of their success to their SOP, standard operating platform, which is a 200 page â€Å"how to† manual for nearly every feasible store situation ranging from product sales and service to inventory management. The purpose of the SOP was to train the sales force and promote uniformity across the organization. In addition to the SOP, Best Buy’s skillful merchandising and marketing, along with their sales force (â€Å"Blue Shirts†) are credited with the success of the retailer. Blue Shirts received extensive training and enjoyed a unique and rewarding corporate culture, with part-time associates making $8.00 per hour and full-time employees earning $20.00. Sales associates often received public recognition for strong performance in addition to immediate rewards such as restaurant vouchers. Supervisors were also incentivized based on annual department and store performance. Starting store managers in mid-size stores were compensated with salaries between $50,000 and $150,000. The success resulting from these practices did not go unnoticed by competitors such as Wal-Mart and Dell, who imitated many of Best Buy’s strategies and stole well trained Blue Shirts. Best Buy continued their growth by opening new stores and through the acquisition of various competitors through the U.S. and reaching into Canada, with the acquisition of Future Shop Ltd. in 2002. By November 1995, Best Buy operated 796 Best Buy stores plus 20 Magnolia Audio Video stores in the U.S. and 162 Best Buy owned stores in Canada (978 stores, not including Geek Squad outlets). In contrast, Circuit City operated over 600 stores in the U.S. and Canada around the same time, however, Best Buy managed to double the sales per square foot of their main competitor. With nearly 1600 stores between the two main players in the electronics market, the market is nearing saturation and growth will have to be achieved by a means other than new store openings. Best Buy’s pre-centricity model was easy for competitors to imitate and encroach on Best Buy’s market share. Best buy borrowed the superstore concept from Circuit City and Circuit City mirrored Best Buy’s staffing model and merchandising decisions. Low prices and a wide selection are hardly inimitable characteristics. While wide selection and expansive product offerings at discount prices (due to volume purchases) may be difficult for new entrants to copy, it is a minor/temporary barrier to entry with the introduction of the internet. Best Buy’s CEO, Brad Anderson, joined the company in 1973 when he joined the staff of three at the then single, Sound of Music, location. A music buff addicted to sales, with his long tenure with company and in the industry seems like the logical choice to lead the company to even greater success as CEO. Prior to becoming CEO in 2002, Anderson had spent 11 years as President and COO of Best Buy. Like most industries, it seems electronics consumers were prone to change as products evolved, so did the end-users and their buying habits. Best Buy had a history of being able to adapt to the changing markets and their ability to do so contributed to their success (i.e. the vastly expanded product line, evolution to superstores, expansion, acquisition, converting from commission to salaried sales force.). The perception that customers were focusing less on the technical aspect of products and redirecting their attention to service and support, led to Anderson’s custom-centricity initiative. This transition and the rollout of 144 new â€Å"centricity† Best Buy stores was being blamed for the company missing third quarter earnings in 2005, resulting in a 12% decline in stock value and a loss of nearly $2B in market capitalization. Did Anderson perform the proper strategic market planning analysis before selecting and implementing the centricity initiative? Assess the need for a change in Best Buy’s strategy when Brand Anderson became CEO. If the centricity concept is being blamed for not meeting earnings and the decline in Best Buy’s stock price and market capitalization, the question becomes was there a need for this change to the company’s strategy, was the strategy poorly implemented, was there a delayed market response to the change, or was the launch an overly aggressive action of a newly appointed CEO? The Best Buy leadership team first needed to evaluate whether there truly was a need for a (drastic) change and if so, was centricity the appropriate response to the market. The electronics industry and retail in general is cyclical and while Best Buy needs to be proactive and receptive to market changes, it is not uncommon for the industry to experience temporary contractions that would not require (costly and risky) restructuring of the company’s value proposition. Granted, Best Buy’s one style fits all approach may have been too broad and unrealistic for the long-term. Ignoring the signs that the market was changing or a delayed reaction to those changes could be more costly or even fatal than centricity and the alleged result on earnings and stock price. There are several approaches for Best Buy to evaluate this situation, the most desirable of which might be the Structure-Conduct-Performance-Paradigm. I will provide somewhat of a Resource Based View (listing a few marketing resources) and mention some of their Dynamic Capabilities, as provided in the case. Best Buy should fist consider their resources and the strengths that have made them successful in the past. While the past is not always indicative of the future, a historical perspective will provide some insight as to not only what has worked in the past, but how the company was able to implement various strategies to learn from their successes and failures. Historically, Best Buy has utilized their knowledge resources well. Their rapid growth and success would imply a strong customer and competitor knowledge. Overall, the Best Buy reputation, as the place to get brand name electronics at discount prices with just the right amount of customer service, has proven to be a positive reputational resource. Blue Shirts are a (human) resource that should not be overlooked; retention is crucial, as training is costly. Blue Shirts are a valuable (informational) resource to gain insight into what customers â€Å"really want,† as sales associates have the most direct customer interaction. Extracting this information from sales associates is a cost effective approach to assess the market before implementing major changes, such as centricity. Best Buy’s unique culture and structure are organizational resources that distinguish the company from the competition and support (non-managerial) employee retention. While supplier relationships are clearly a solid relational resource, customer relationships are somewhat of a gray area for Best Buy, as many customers are not loyal and often buy through various channels. Best Buy has responded to trend by launching their Reward Zone program to incentivize return customers and as a source to gain customer knowledge. An obvious physical resource of Best Buy is its number of stores, which results in volume purchases, allowing the company to sell brand name merchandise to customers at discount prices. In contrast, an operation of this size with nearly 1000 stores and 120,000 employees incurs significant overhead costs (a potential weakness and often the first resources to be cut in an effort to reduce expenses). Many of the aforementioned resources are imitable in some way or another. For example, employees can be trained or Blue Shirts poached or the competition could open more stores and purchase more inventory, strengthening their relationships with suppliers and pass along the resulting volume discounts to customers. A resource based view would indicate that while these are valuable resources to Best Buy, they (along with many of the company’s resources and capabilities) are substitutable (i.e. suppliers can be interchanged) and imitable by the competition. In response, Best Buy strives to not only offer the customer similar products and attributes as the competition, but to find a way to do so that provides a sustainable advantage. What makes Best Buy superior to its rivals? This requires a constant assessment of Best Buy’s marketing capabilities and this need to differentiate might explain Anderson’s drastic centricity approach. Pricing management is a complicated marketing capability at Best Buy with new technology products being constantly introduced, while others are becoming obsolete. It seems Best Buy excels in the selling and channel management marketing capabilities, with their ability to attract and retain knowledgeable sales associates and to maintain ongoing relationships with key suppliers. The likely and often misused approach would be for the organization to perform a current SWOT analysis to consider their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. I have already listed a few of Best Buy’s strengths (size, supplier relationships, Blue Shirts). Additionally, Best Buy has a history of evolving in response to the changing market and applying various innovative concepts in response. The ability to foresee or quickly assess and respond to market change seems to be a strength of the retailer. While extensive product offerings are a strength of Best Buy, having a significant inventory of products that rapidly become outdated is a necessary weakness of being an electronics retailer; finding a way to manage this would be a significant opportunity. Accordingly, keeping up with rapidly changing products and customer interests are a threat of Best Buy any technology retailer. Anderson is exploring the opportunities component of the analysis when he and his team identified and pursued the following initiatives: â€Å"customer centricity, efficient enterprise, win with service, and win in entertainment,† ultimately selecting on customer centricity. A few obvious threats to be considered are competitors such as Wal-Mart, Circuit City, and Amazon, as well as the ever changing electronics market. Not keeping up with the latest trend, product, or channel could be fatal and explains why Anderson and his team concluded the need to focus on customer centricity, which he felt was a proactive response to the shopping experience that customers were seeking going forward. What does the Customer-Centricity strategy imply and how is it different from a strategy of simply providing great service? The Customer-Centricity strategy implies that Best Buy knows their customers well and that only a few sub-segments are profitable enough to merit an increased level of service and attention. This increased focus on these target segments or fewer/more profitable clients and the assumption that catering to these customers will result in solution purchases is the foundation of Anderson’s initiative. The concept seems to do very little to increase sales to the groups outside of the target segment(s) and seemingly does not consider the untapped potential of these customers. This approach is in contrast to the concept of trying to be â€Å"everything to everyone† or â€Å"one style fits all.† Centricity was an effort to meet customer individual needs while still maintaining the chain’s broad focus. The idea of centricity was based on research that had found many of Best Buy’s customers were leaving dissatisfied and that roughly 20% of customer visits were unprofitable. It was an effort to revamp the store’s value proposition, which was a deviation from their previous winning formula and questionably a step a in a different direction from a core competency. Instead of the â€Å"one style fits all† approach which admittedly would leave some customers dissatisfied, while attempting to cater to the masses, Best Buy’s approach to centricity involved focusing on only one or two distinct customer segments at each store, which also required a new set of segment leaders. This approach was also a focus on Best Buy’s most profitable segments in an effort to deter their unprofitable shoppers. Best Buy could have expanded their customer service efforts, while still maintaining the â€Å"one style fits all† concept through a far less radical change than centricity required. This would seem to be the logical choice and would have relied more on the strengths that made Best Buy great. With the market nearing saturation due to the number of stores, the focus became to sell more to existing customers (versus adding stores to acquire new ones) based on a better understanding of customers’ requirements and â€Å"lavishing them with attention, service, and know how.† This would have been attainable by tweaking Best Buy’s current strategy. Both approaches would involve collecting and analyzing customer data and creating an appropriate action plan based on the findings. One aspect of the change was to â€Å"encourage employees to think and behave as owners and engage with customers to meet their unique needs.† This is one way to provide great service and obtainable outside of the centricity strategy. The objectives of building loyalty with profitable segments and leveraging the company’s existing assets, is not unique to centricity and could have been achieved by providing great customer service to all customers, while focusing on those that are more profitable. Both options involve customer research and additional training of sales associates; it would seem not implementing centricity, which required revamping the store format, new processes, and risked isolating some segments would be the more cost effective method to address the expected shift in the market. Best Buy assumed that their customers were comprised of 5 major segments, who combined accounted for 50%-90% of total revenue. These 5 segments were identified by shoppers’ demographics, behaviors, and attitudes, then assigned a name (Barry, Buzz, Jill, Ray, or BB4B (small businesses with less than 20 employees)) and assigned a segment leader focused on deeply understanding their segment’s shopping behavior and attitude. The case states â€Å"the idea behind customer-centricity was to become the customer’s â€Å"smart friend† and provide a â€Å"complete solution.† While being a trusted advisor to customers and working to sell bundles of products is a logical response to the changing customer orientation, this could have been achieved by less drastic means than those used to implement Anderson’s centricity. This concept seems to center around Best Buy’s market orientation, specifically the increasing customer benefits component, as Be st Buy already cannot take much action to further decrease the buyer’s costs. The introduction of Reward Zone was a step in the right direction for the centricity initiative. The benefits of the reward program were multifaceted; providing additional customer data as well as incentivizing current customers to be repeat customers and to make additional purchases. This is one means by which to help Best Buy achieve a SCA, however, many competitors offered similar programs. It is unclear whether Best Buy directed much, if any attention on their competitor orientation. In addition to gathering and analyzing customer data, it is advisable for the company to consider the strengths, weaknesses, strategies, and capabilities of their competitors. Anderson’s centricity plan does not appear to consider competitor orientation and focuses solely on a few select target segments. Keeping with the market orientation research, Best Buy already uses low costs as a source of competitive advantage and they are hoping that centricity will be a source of differentiation, however, competitor orientation is critical to the success of such an initiative. Customer-Centricity has many similarities to simply providing an increased level of customer service. The most significant difference is the focus on the chain’s most profitable segments, specific to each store and complicated testing and implementation process that was chosen for the launch. Both concepts could be used to move toward solution selling and the â€Å"smart friend† concept. Centricity and improved customer service could involve empowering managers and encouraging employees to think and behave as owners. Centricity was a drastic way to improve customer service, which resulted in some pilot stores reporting double the performance gains of other U.S. locations. There were many benefits that resulted from Anderson’s strategy such as reward zone and Geek Squad, which complimented the goal of providing a solution by adding a service component that Best Buy did not previously provide. Geek Squad was also a means by which to suggest a solution sale as well as it placed the retailer in the customer’s home or business, further strengthening the relationship with customer and providing the opportunity for addition recommendations and referrals when the â€Å"Geek† was onsite. The scientific approach that was used in the implementation of centricity was unique to the strategy, but in many ways could have been applied to multiple approaches to improve the customer experience. Centricity was ultimately a differentiation strategy used in hopes of being difficult for competitors to imitate. When Anderson launched centricity, he clearly realized that long term survival is more important than short-term profits. If nothing else the st rategy is rare and difficult to imitate. How was the new Customer-Centricity strategy implemented? What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of the strategy’s implementation as described in the case? The Customer-Centricity strategy was first introduced in 12 laboratory stores, then 32 pilot stores (most of which were in California), then introduced to 110 addition stores after some pilot stores reported performance gains double some comparable U.S. stores. Deviating from the clearly defined SOP, associates were now trained to approach problems using a scientific method involving the creating of a hypothesis regarding the customer, testing it, and analyzing the results. If the hypothesis was substantiated, it could be tested in other stores, and ultimately become a general recommendation throughout the organization. This was concept of centricity that empowered associates and increased innovation from within, which is a strength of the new strategy. In contrast, the SOP was created to promote uniformity across the organization; this scientific component of centricity is a deviation from the uniform concept(s) that had been attributed to the company’s success. The resulting confusion in practices and procedures, while they may ultimately lead to a positive outcome and greater innovation, could be viewed as a weakness of the strategy (at least during the transition period). The additional responsibilities placed on managers and staff, were a struggle and weakness. Employees who had previously been given guidelines for most any issue were now being given the freedom to develop and test their own responses, however, they were held accountable for the resulting outcomes. It was now up to the store manager to execute the value proposition. GMs were expected to lead by example, in light of the increased responsibility. The new processes were stated to take â€Å"five times more time† and while the resulting innovation is good, the extra effort required resulting in a turnover rate of two-thirds among GMs and an expectation among associates to be compensated for their extra effort. However the ability for associates to tailor responses to individual customer situations, should ultimately improve customer satisfaction and loyalty, leading to increased profits. The entire focus of centricity is to increase customer satisfaction and improve retention, as acquisition is becoming increasingly difficult. This realization and reaction is itself if a response to the changing market, which is a strength of the organization. The empowerment of employees will result in exceeding customer’s initial expectations, as they are not accustomed to individualized solutions. This is another strength of centricity and how it was implemented. I question why the majority of the initial 32 pilot stores were in California and why only top performing stores were selected for centricity conversion. It would seem focusing on a single geographic region would generate findings based on an isolated group of similar customers. Marketing studies suggest that in order to increase confidence, research must be replicated in diverse environments over time. This does not appear to be the approach with the testing of centricity at Best Buy and could be viewed as a weakness. I further question the decision to launch the concept in only top performing stores. It makes sense to test the strategy in some top performing stores to see if their performance improves further; it does not make sense to risk a large number of top performing locations with an unproven theory that could negatively impact their performance. It seems logical to use the profits from top performing sites to offset some of the potential losses that are typical with the ramp up period of any significant launch or change. If a store is a top performer, I would first analyze what contributing factors make those stores top performers, be it location, management, or customer interactions, etc. to see if these points of differentiation could be applied to other locations to improve the performance of lesser stores, before revamping how the most successful locations achieve their success. There are many strengths and weakness of centricity and how Best Buy chose to implement it, the reality is that it is a long-term approach, which typically result in short term struggles and reduced profits. How would you resolve the tension between the three parts of the organization (merchandizing, stores, and segments)? Is the notion of a three-legged stool viable? Can Best Buy sustain its competitiveness with P&L responsibilities residing with three different organizations? The new strategy forced collaboration among groups that had not previously collaborated. It increased responsibility and accountability, while taking away control from groups that were accustomed to being in power. Shifting focus from a wide segment to a particular customer’s needs was a new concept requiring different resources. Segment organizations were now held accountable to deliver incremental growth. As a result of all these changes, the various parts of the organization felt â€Å"completely handcuffed.† As the previous sections indicate, higher gross profit margins could not compensate for the conversion costs of the changes being implemented. While the goal may have been to â€Å"have everybody feel like they’re part of the same story,† making three parts of the organization responsible for their individualize P&L only added to the tension. I do not dispute that the organizations should monitory P&L and be held accountable, but when the success of the organization is the common goal, they should be working together to improve the overall P&L of the organization. This approach made it unclear which part owned customer insight and who should report to whom and how they should work together. Clarifying these gray areas of ownership and responsibility are the first step in resolving the tension among the groups. The current practices promote confusion and tension. A uniformed approach would be optimal. In a retail organization, such as Best Buy, merchandizing, stores, and segments, are all critical to success. In varying situations, one â€Å"leg of the stool† may receive greater attention or responsibility, but that is typically for the advancement of the organization as a whole or to offset some of the focus of another part of the organization. All three legs are necessary for Best Buy to properly deliver their value proposition and all three are necessary to help management implement the marketing strategy. Merchandizing, stores, and segments are all part of Best Buy’s marketing mix. Merchandising and segments contribute to stores, but all are intertwined. The individualized P&L structure and scorecard assessment add to the tension and switch the weight placed on each leg, but without a leg or if one leg gets too weak (not enough focus), the stool (entire organization) could collapse. As new products are suggested and tested, this changes the (buying and selling) processes, causing merchandising to be more reactionary than they were accustomed to being in the past, shifting the weight from one leg to another, but not reducing the importance of that organization. The absence of any one particular group or attribute could be detrimental to the organization as a whole. While each piece is interdependent and critical to the whole and policies should be designed accordingly. The realization that each piece contains and shapes the other will result in policies that help to reduce the tension between varying parts of the organization. While Best Buy is focusing on the customer and tailoring products and services to meet their needs a reflection on internal practices and satisfaction would be helpful and achieving those goals and should be considered, tested, and adjusted as well. It will difficult for Best Buy to sustain its competitiveness with P&L responsibilities residing with three different organizations. As mentioned in the prior to sections, this practices ad tension to the organization, which is not good toward long-term success, and causes undue competition among the various organizations. Merchandizing is encouraged to improve their P&L, this may come at the price of a negative impact on the store’s P&L. This is the result of collaboration and reduces the competitive advantage of the overall organization. Centricity involves significant and complex changes, which both help and hinder the marketing strategy implementation. The success of the change will require the cooperation of all groups within the organization, especially merchandizing, stores, and segments. Having policies and practices in place that discourage cooperation within the organization by holding complimentary groups accountable for separate measurements does not help Best Buy (or any organization) create synergies leading to a sustainable competitive advantage. The degree of alignment in itself is an implementation driver and contrasting accountability measures do not lead to alignment of goals. Best Buy experiences enough competitive rivalry in the marketplace without encouraging it internally among organizations. Best Buy is clearly a marketing organization and contributing factors of success are: â€Å"all the components of marketing organization fit together †¦ in a way that simultaneously fits with the requirements of the firm’s strategy †¦ while also matching the needs of the marketplace.† Centricity is Anderson’s strategy to match the needs of the marketplace; the changing strategy requires some changes in various aspects of the company (including merchandizing, stores, and segments), however, it is still a requirement that they fit together, like the legs of a stool. I question if the continuation of separate P&Ls are the optimal way to maintain the fit and cooperation that is necessary for the success of a marketing organization. This seems contradictory to fit and is obviously a source of tension. How long before this becomes apparent and reveals itself to the marketplace; what effect with this have on stock price and market capitalization? In order for centricity to be successful, Best Buy must alter their resource deployments to conform to their strategy changes to achieve the intended goal(s) vs. creating practices that foster tension without any long-term benefit. Granted, it is a tradeoff to fit the strategy to the structure or the structure to the strategy, which is complicated by the complexity of the organization. It is a requirement that they match their resources to their capabilities to their strategy and to market conditions. I hope that I have provided a few suggestions on how they could go about achieving this goal. While I have questioned many aspects of centricity and its implementation, it was obviously a success as unlike Circuit City; Best Buy still exists today (although they continue to struggle due to short product life cycle and the ever changing technology market).

John Locke outlinect Essay

â€Å"Rationalism is the thought that appeals to reason or intellect a primary or fundamental source of knowledge or justification. † â€Å"It is typically contrasted with empiricism, which appeals to sensory experience as a primary or fundamental source of knowledge or justification. † John Locke argues that, â€Å"We come to this world knowing nothing whatsoever. † (Warburton 74). He believes that experience teaches us everything we know. This view is usually known as empiricism, in contrast to innatism, (the theory that some of our knowledge is in born), and to  rationalism (the strife that we can achieve knowledge of the world by the power of reason alone). ?Locke’s essay â€Å"Human Understanding† published in 1689, soon became a philosophical bestseller. He produced four editions of it in his lifetime, and it had already reached its eleventh by 1735. This book is complex and wide ranging work; its main focus is the origin and limits of human knowledge. He tries to answer these questions. * what can we know? * What is the relation between thought and reality? These are real the perennial questions of the branch of philosophy called epistemology, or the theory of knowledge. ?Locke described his role as that of an underlabourer , clearing away conceptual confusions so that the scientists, or natural philosophers, as they were then known, could carry on their important work of adding to human knowledge. (Warburton 75). ? No innate principle 1. Locke does not believe that it makes sense to say that someone could be having a thought without their knowing what that thought was about. He rejects any idea of unconscious thoughts as nonsensical. A) One argument he uses to support his claim that there are no innate principles is that it is obvious that there is not total agreement about what the supposedly innate  principles might be. If we were all born knowing that, for example, we should keep our promises, then everyone would recognize this as fundamental principle. But, as Locke points out, there is no such general agreement. (Warburton 76). Nor do children immediately recognize the principle as one binding on them. Locke continues to argue that there is no innate principle aside from the principle that is taught and learnt. ?Locke supports his idea by saying, if there were innate principles then children must strongly abide by them since adults have already influenced by the culture and people. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ These and other arguments lead Locke to reject the view that there are any innate principles. This led him with the task of explaining how it is that the human mind comes to be furnished with thoughts, beliefs, and knowledge of the world. His answer is that all our ideas come from experience. Ideas Locke uses the word idea to mean whatever it is that anyone thinks about. When you look out of your window, what you see – a tree perhaps, or a sparrow – is not the tree or sparrow itself, but rather representation of it, an idea, something like a picture in your head. (Warburton 76). Locke believes that not all our ideas are received from immediate sensation of the world. Some of them are ideas of reflection, such as when we reason, or remember or will do something. Locke believes that all our ideas ultimately come from experience, so that the contents of our thoughts, even when we are reflecting rather than perceiving, all come from sensation. Example: A child locked away would have no more idea of scarlet and green than he would of the taste of  oyster or pineapple if he had never tried them. Ideas can be combined in several ways, so that once we have the idea of scarlet and the idea of a coat, we can imagine a scarlet coat, even if we’ve never actually seen one. But the simpler ideas from which the complex ones are built all originate in perception by one or more of the five senses. ( Warburton 77). Primary and Secondary Qualities When we say that a snowball is greyish-white and cold and round, what we mean is that it can produce in us ides of these properties. Locke distinguishes primary and secondary qualities , giving a very different account of each. -Primary qualities are inseparable from objects. The primary qualities of a snowball would include its shape and solidity, but not its color or its coldness. Solidity and shapes are more likely to remain constant at place over time. – Secondary qualities would be color and coldness because its coldness can be changed at a different room temperature while different light settings can give shade to whatever object of your concentration that in a way gives you an illusion view of what you’re actually watching. Personal Identity.

Christmas Trees in the Workplace and the First Amendment...

OUTLINE Overview Presentation of the issue Christmas Trees in the Workplace and the First Amendment a. The First Amendment Review b. Review framing of Constitution vis-ÃÆ' -vis 1st Amendment c. Political and social context d. Evolution of political and social context in relation to 1st Amendment The First Amendment as Freedom of Speech and Religious Expression Interpretation of Freedom of Speech Interpretation of Freedom of Religious Expression Limits to Amendment in contemporary society Literature Review Pre-1990 writings Contemporary scholarship Ethical considerations utilitarianism and deontology Historical Court Cases Historiography of Issue Evolution of Courts opinion and interpretation of the issue Polarized Views Pro and Con of allowing Christmas Trees in workplace Christmas Trees should be part of protected 1st Amendment Rights Christmas Trees are an expression of religion, and therefore are not Protected for public view in workplace Conclusions and Further Research Table of Contents Abstract Page 3 Arguments Page 4 Overview- The First Amendment Page 4 Interpretation of Religious Freedom Page 6 Literature Review Page 8 Utilitarianism and Deontology Page 10 Historiography of the Issue The High Court Page 12 Polarized Views Page 15 Conclusions Page 15 References Page 17 Abstract The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orShow MoreRelatedThe First Amendment and Christmas Trees in the Workplace552 Words   |  2 Pagesï » ¿Topic The First Amendment and Christmas Trees in the workplace and public arena. Thesis While a strict interpretation of the Constitution could find that Christmas Trees in the workplace are inappropriate, there is a dependent factor based on convergence, tradition, and community values. Outline Overview Presentation of the issue Christmas Trees in the Workplace and the First Amendment a. The First Amendment Review b. Review framing of Constitution vis-ÃÆ'  -vis 1st Amendment c. Political andRead MoreStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 PagesWork–Life Conflicts 21 †¢ Creating a Positive Work Environment 22 †¢ Improving Ethical Behavior 22 Coming Attractions: Developing an OB Model 23 An Overview 23 †¢ Inputs 24 †¢ Processes 25 †¢ Outcomes 25 Summary and Implications for Managers 30 S A L Self-Assessment Library How Much Do I Know About Organizational Behavior? 4 Myth or Science? â€Å"Most Acts of Workplace Bullying Are Men Attacking Women† 12 An Ethical Choice Can You Learn from Failure? 24 glOBalization! Does National Culture Affect Organizational