The Five Factor Model free essay sample

Finally, economic forces relate to conditions in the local labor market including the degree of labor mobility and the competitive economic pressures the organization may face (Baron Kreps, 1999). These forces influence CI endeavor to collectively address the concern of corporate ethics and the maintenance of ethical standards. Social Forces Employees misunderstanding can lead an effect on the organization, it is important that companies establish internal codes of conduct and outline ethical obligations. Unethical business practices can create undesired results in their employees such as confusion, misaligned judgment, and dissatisfaction. These employees may eventually leave the company or produce sub-optimal work. In both scenarios, the company will have wasted valuable resources. Political and Legal Forces CI is governed by such legislation as the Economic Espionage Act (EEA), which prohibits illegal activities such as computer hacking, wiretapping, the use of bribery to obtain information, and the misrepresentation of identity (Pagell, 1998). It is difficult, however, for legislation to include all aspects of CI. We will write a custom essay sample on The Five Factor Model or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page This leaves room for a â€Å"gray area† of conduct, which often leads to unethical practices. An organization may choose to either enforce the use of unethical methodology or to provide guidance that supports ethical conduct (Trevino Weaver, 1997). Whichever stance the corporation chooses will eventually have a direct impact on how the CI team member may perform. Where unethical practices are adopted, CI members often feel pressured to appease for fear of punishment, even when their own ethical standards are compromised (Trevino Weaver, 1997). A rift between job obligation and loyalty to the company may soon induce the employee to depart on negative terms. Those employees in companies that address ethical issues, however, have been shown to take more pride in their work and provide more optimum results (Trevino Weaver, 1997). Economic Forces A competitive industry environment encourages the formation of an effective and well-maintained CI department. A well aware firm will often make the additional investment of providing sufficient training to its employees. Nonetheless, job mobility and turnover tend to be high in the CI industry. Many CI professionals quickly develop a certain degree of expertise in their field (Trevino Weaver, 1997). It is not surprising, therefore, that competing companies may be quick to lure employees away to their own CI departments (Trevino Weaver, 1997). This would obviously have a number of negative consequences on the original firm. The organization would have to reinvest resources to replace and train new staff and, more importantly, intelligence gathered by their former employees may fall into competitors’ hands. CI employees may also simply leave an organization because their assignment has come to an end. Most CI assignments last less than three years (Barndt, 1999) and CI positions are not always considered by the firm to be an ongoing obligation. This could also work to the firm’s disadvantage, since gathered intelligence should never be considered static. New developments are always transpiring that render recently collected intelligence obsolete and invalid. The firm that fails to recognize this will have surely wasted its CI efforts. Workforce The workforce element of the Five-Factor model concerns demographic factors such as social (or workforce) homogeneity (i. e. , workforce uniformity with respect to education, work experience, etc. ). Workforce consistency also includes the skill set incorporated into the team. Demographic factors can also seriously impede or enhance CI and strategy (Baron Kreps, 1999). The skill-set that the CI team leader possesses is vital to team success. Managers need to be able to understand the degree of management their particular team requires. Due to the creative and sometimes ambiguous nature of CI, team leaders must know when to step in and give direction or when to let the CI team members find their own resolution. Micro-management from the team leader will likely undermine team effectiveness and inhibit team performance as members become dependent upon guidance or possibly resentful of interference (Simon, 2000). Too little direction from the team leader may lead to confusion with regards to the composition of team deliverables. The team does, however, need a certain level of direction as a lack of team and project structure can decrease CI effectiveness (Simon, 2000). Effective planning can enhance team performance, as it allows the team to gain greater understanding of the thought processes and concerns of their colleagues. Proper planning can also ensure project alignment with the clients’ demands, and thus create a strategy that will fulfil the project’s overall purpose (Simon, 2000). It is important that CI managers also possess heightened communication and organizational skills, as it is their role to coordinate the CI function with that of the organization. More importantly, the CI manager must build effective networks with the organization’s decision-makers in order to clearly and effectively relay project requirements to the team as well as communicate output from the team. All team members need to possess certain skills to be effective CI professionals. They must be creative and resourceful, have a passion for delving deeply into issues, and be able to deliver finished intelligence roducts in a form that executives can utilize (Simon, 2000). The skill set of the CI team should invariably incorporate a broad array of expertise. By including members with only one type of educational or work background, the CI manager may inadvertently create a team that lacks vital skills. For instance a team in which members consist only of scientists â€Å"may produc e a report that lacks a business or social perspective,† whereas a disproportionately â€Å"tactical team may lack strategy evaluation or strategic insights† (Simon, 2000). OrganizationAL Culture and Structure The organization’s culture refers to the norms of conduct, work attitudes, and the values or assumptions that direct behavior in the organization (Baron Kreps, 1999). It is the structural and cultural aspects of the organization upon which the application of CI is based (Simon, 1998). However, although the organization may have decreed that CI be an integral part of its structure, CI acceptance and proper utilization may not necessarily ensue. Other organizational departments may fail to understand the role and correct function of the CI department. All too often, these departments inundate the CI division with unreasonable requests for information (Mysore Turan, 1999). Such requests occupy valuable time and waste the organization’s resources. Much of the information requested is either a redundant duplication of a previously-completed project requested by an unrelated department, or these requests are simplistic (but time consuming) data-finding missions that the requesting department should have researched for itself (Mysore Turan, 1999). The CI department’s function should not be thought of as a â€Å"trivia-on-demand service† (Kalb, 1999). The function of the CI professional is not to simply provide raw data but to recover, analyze, and present findings in a format that can be used to influence organizational strategy. The CI department also faces other threats if the rest of the organization does not recognize its proper function. If the CI department is considered less essential than other departments, it will receive inadequate resources. Insufficient numbers of staff are often overworked, and under-trained, and are sometimes also responsible for additional duties not related to CI (Sawka, 1998). In ddition, CI departments are often deprived of the funds, equipment, and materials that are essential for CI specialists to perform their jobs adequately (Calof, 1999). Too often, requesting departments do not communicate their needs to the CI department clearly (Sawka, 1998). This can result in uncertainty over project requirements. For the CI department to succeed, it must build extensive information networks within the organization (Sawka, 1998). These information networks must not only provide what is asked of them, but should also utilize data or intelligence collected by other divisions. Unfortunately, it may often be the case that many of the other divisions develop a sense of ownership for self-generated reports and also distrust the CI department, resulting in an unwillingness to share information (Calof, 1999). With all of these restrictions in place, the CI department may be able to deliver little more than data summaries to its customers† (Sawka, 1998). In an attempt to overcome these cultural obstacles, CI practitioners must strive to exhibit or achieve the following (Bernhardt, 1999): †¢ Strong leadership, team, and communicative abilities Credibility in the eyes of management †¢ Respect as objective and trusted professionals throughout the organization †¢ The ability to produce an actionable product Organizational Strategy Before adopting a CI initiative, the organization’s distinct competencies and long-term objectives should to be considered. The question that needs to be asked in this regard is â€Å"Do these factors support C I? † The CI function should be a recognized part of the organization’s core strategy and considered an essential part of the decision-making process (Bernhardt, 1999). Intelligence must be â€Å"close enough to policy, plans, and operations to have the greatest amount of objectivity, integrity, and judgement† (Bernhardt, 1999). However, for a CI effort to succeed, the most important condition to satisfy is acceptance by the organization’s corporate decision-makers. When used as intended, CI intelligence can be a significant tool for strategic decision-making. Often, managers â€Å"get stuck on internal issues and forget about what’s going on outside† (Kalb, 1999). CI provides a means to efficiently identify outside concerns. Unfortunately, CI is often ignored or placed secondary to other concerns (Bernhardt, 1999). Ideally, the head of the CI department should be an invited member at board meetings. Unfortunately, this practice is generally not exercised, as the CI function is seldom considered by management to be â€Å"sufficiently credible† (Bernhardt, 1999). Thus, it may be the corporate decision-makers themselves who fail to recognize the importance of CI. In a survey conducted on the opinions of chief executive officers (CEOs) and chief information officers (CIOs), the majority of respondents believed that the CI function had both offensive and defensive uses and that it was at least somewhat important (Vedder, Vanecek, Guynes Cappel, 1999). Most believed that spending time and resources on CI activities was appropriate and that their firm’s IT function, in particular, could benefit from using CI. The majority of CEOs believed that their organization’s CI efforts would expand within the next two to three years. Although results from this survey seem somewhat promising, the overall lack of managerial support within a number of organizations seems to be the greatest setback for successful CI implementation and, consequently, the biggest reason for its failure to be effective. Lack of managerial support may be attributed to several factors. First, managers often do not know what intelligence to ask for, or alternatively, do not know how to interpret or utilize the intelligence they receive. Second, managers often do not know how to use intelligence or CI departments efficiently. Finally, preconceived notions may obstruct managers’ views. It can be inferred that until these obstacles are overcome and managers change the value they place on the incorporation of intelligence into their daily operations, CI will remain of marginal significance (Gilad Smith, 1998). Each of these obstacles is discussed in more detail below. Technology of Production and Organization of Work The final element of the Five-Factor model encompasses a broader spectrum of ideas. It is not so much concerned with the available technology per se, but more with the way in which labor inputs are converted to outputs. That is, this element is mostly concerned with how tasks are organized and coordinated, not just by what machines, if any, are utilized. This element contemplates the required skills of the employees, the monitoring of employees, and task ambiguity and creativity (Baron Kreps, 1999). Culture Structure Competitive Intelligence Success Strategy Workforce Production Organization External Environment