Agency Discretion: Precedence as Set by the Chevron Decision

Date Written: March 9th, 2016
Written For: GCU ADM 636

Agency Discretion: Precedence as Set by the Chevron Decision

            Laws are set in place to guide the Federal Government and Supreme Court as well as lower courts so that they may reach a decision that is fair and impartial to all involved.  These laws, however, are not always able to predict all cases that might arise.  When this happens, agency discretion comes into play, as it gives the agency the ability to reach a decision that helps set precedence.  This ability, as set by the Chevron decision, has led to controversy but also given power to agencies that was previously not standard.

The Chevron Decision

            The Chevron decision emerged after the case of Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., in which questions as to various points of communications acts came into play.  This then lead to the question of agency power. Government oversight has been a concern from its inception.  The thought of a government having absolute power over all decisions and all agencies sets the stage for dictatorship.  With the Chevron decision, these fears became less pertinent as it gave agencies the ability to apply reasonable discretion to their own decisions. This discretion empowers the agency while removing overcrowding from an already backed up court system. 

            The deference that this decision gives the agencies also creates a bond between agency and the courts as it shows a willingness to relinquish power. Understanding that, “Chevron deference is extended to agencies when they interpret statutes through their own rules”, one can assess that an agency that is thoroughly versed in its own policies will be able to successfully mitigate any unforeseen issues that might crop up (Hall, 2015, p. 63). Furthermore, an agency that is able to self-sustain its decisions becomes an agency that is able to withhold standards throughout future cases and sets precedence that other agencies might not be able to sustain without thoroughly understood logical decisions[S1] .

Discretion and Deference in Play

            The Chevron decision has had an impact on many cases.  One of those high profile cases was that of Elian Gonzalez.  When he was six years old, Elian and his mother were on a boat from Cuba with other refugees.  The boat capsized leaving Elian as the lone survivor.  As Elian was a minor, this led to controversy as to whether he could apply for asylum or whether he had to be returned to his father’s custody in Cuba. As the asylum request fell into the jurisdiction of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and there was no laws set to deal with the issue, it was up to the agency to use both deference and discretion to reach a decision as to his fate.

            Discretion and deference together make up choice and give agencies the ability to take control of their direct areas. As noted by Hall in relation the Chevron decision, “when it appears that Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law, and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority” (Hall, 2015, p. 63). Relating this back to Gonzalez v. Reno, by which the Elian Gonzalez case is referred, it seems that the INS, using its given ability from Congress, made a decision that best suited the needs of the organization as well as held as close to the law as possible.  In using their discretion and deference, the INS protected itself from future decisions of this suit and reached a decision that was held without emotion, but instead was made through logic. In fact, larger courts, such as the Appeals Court, note that they did not fully agree with decisions as made, “but ‘the responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between views of the public interest are not judicial ones’ rather they belong to the ‘political branches’” (Dillman, 2002, p. 182). The decision to send Elian home to be with his father and to void out his asylum request, while emotional, was still understood as a choice best for the future of the INS and asylum cases. With this in mind, by making the decision with logical concepts, the INS achieved a milestone decision[S2] . 

The Future of Agency Discretion

While some may argue adamantly for or against agency discretion, as of now, it appears that it is here to say in the administrative decision process.  The bond it creates between agencies and the courts is one of mutual respect.  It gives agencies a chance to prove that they are hearty and logical and it gives courts the ability to focus on cases that require more focus. The largest concern as to agency discretion is that, “unquestionably, excessive and unchecked discretion can lead to arbitrary decision making” (Hall, 2015, p. 54).  Assuming that all agencies will use fair and impartial decision making is naïve as it relies on the ethics of human nature.  There are some cases in which discretion needs to be removed, such as law-focused agencies.  However, the ability to make decisions that are best for an agency with certain focuses is key to the agencies success[S3] .

Conclusion

Whether an agency employees their ability to use discretion or not, decisions such as in the Chevron case have set precedence for future cases to be understood on an individual basis. This individual understanding of a case allows those who are more versed in the circumstances and situations of the case to make a decision that will benefit all involved to the best of their ability.  In order to achieve such a benefit, an agency must be able to use deference and discretion in tandem.  Furthermore, a well-thought out, logical decision can set the standard for future decisions across different agencies.

 

 

 

References

 

Dillman, D. L. (2002). The paradox of discretion and the case of Elian Gonzalez. Public Organization Review, (2), 165-185. Retrieved March 7, 2016, from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=16780901&site=eds-live&scope=site

Hall, D. (2015). Administrative law: Bureaucracy in a democracy (6^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Reaction Paper - Roosevelt

Date Written: November 2, 2009

Written For: UCCS English 131

An Exigent Arsenal with a Purpose

            President Roosevelt wanted Americans to be ready for war to help them fight against the Axis powers.  He saw a way to help the economy out of the Great Depression and keep our country safe from the Axis.  By using claims of fact to build an exigent situation, Roosevelt asks the country to help out and support the cause.  His case is aided by appeals to pathos and ethos.  Roosevelt used his personal arsenal of knowledge to get the American people on his side and prepared for the dangers ahead.  He wanted his country to prosper.

            One of the biggest forms of entertainment and news during this time was the radio.  Families would gather around the radio and listen to news, stories, or music.  Roosevelt begins his speech with, “this is not a fireside chat on war” (409).  This alone builds exigency.  The family is immediately alerted to the fact that this is not any normal evening spent listening to the radio.  This was their clue that this night would be very important.  Roosevelt knows that Americans will understand the situation in other countries, but when it enters their own territory, they will be called to action.  He wants to let Americans know that they are not immune, “let us no longer blind ourselves to the undeniable fact that the evil forces which have crushed and undermined and corrupted so many others are already within our own gates” (413).  A threat to the home front is something that every American fears and it is something they are willing to defend with their lives, so if they can prevent it before it happens, then they will do what they can to keep it from happening.

            Kairos deals with timing and if Roosevelt had spoken this speech in an untimely manner, the United States of America would have suffered a checkmate.  This situation had reached a point of no return.  The Axis were planning their attacks and hurting innocent people, Roosevelt had to make this point known, “some of our people like to believe that wars in Europe and in Asia are of no concern to us.  But it is a matter of most vital concern to us that European and Asiatic war makers should not gain control of the oceans which lead to this hemisphere” (411).  Roosevelt’s reliance on this exigency really builds on the importance of this situation and information, and without kairos, the value of this situation would be passed over.  However, he does try to keep the people calm with, “does anyone seriously believe that we need to fear attack anywhere in the Americas while a free Britain remains our most powerful naval neighbor in the Atlantic?” (411).   He wants the magnitude of this situation to be known, but he does not want the people to fear an attack at this very moment.  He demands preparedness and his use of kairos affords it to him. 

            Exigency of a situation is different depending on intended audience.  Without the correct audience, every minute piece of information that Roosevelt has spoken would be of little importance to those to whom it is being spoken.   The audience in this piece is most specifically the American people as a whole.  He is not just speaking to CEOs or other big businessmen; he is also speaking with the middle and lower classes.  He clearly states, “so, I appeal to the owners of plants, to the managers, to the workers, to our own government employees to put every ounce of effort into producing these munitions swiftly and without stitnt” (417).  This is an issue that affected everyone and he needed that to be known.  By stating, “as the government is determined to protect the rights of the workers, so the nation has a right to expect that the men who man the machines will discharge their full responsibilities to the urgent needs of defense” (416).  He gives every man a purpose in a way that says help us because we have helped you, which is something many Americans were willing to do at this time.  Americans are a prideful people and they will protect their country no matter the length of time or strength needed in this battle.  Americans are a perfect audience when it comes to issues of their country because many of them will be ready to help their beloved country at the drop of a hat. 

            Roosevelt knows that the American people are prideful and so he uses pathetic appeals to strengthen his case.  To threaten an American’s freedom is to threaten their soul.  So when, “the Nazi masters of Germany have made it clear that they intend not only to dominate all life and thought in their own country, but also enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the resources of Europe to dominate the rest of the world” (410), an American’s sense of pride and security are put on alert.  Sure, the American wants to help Europe, but a main part of that is so the war will not be brought to the country they love so much.  Roosevelt characterizes Nazi Germany as an evil super power hungry and aching for more.  He tells Americans that unless they help Britain’s fight, the war will spread to America.  Another sense Roosevelt appeals to is that of responsibility and remorse.  He states, “There are also American citizens, many of them in high places, who, unwittingly in most cases, are aiding and abetting the work of those agents” (413).  Americans are a whole.  When one does wrong, it is almost as if nothing can be right until it is fixed and because of this, Americans rely on each other in a familial way.  Roosevelt goes on to clarify, “I do not charge these American citizens with being foreign agents.  I do not charge them with doing exactly the kind of work that the dictators want done in the United States” (413).  He also knows that this will increase the want to help, as many Americans are taught from a young age that people make mistakes and they can be helped.  What better way to help your fellow American, than to protect the country form war?  One appeal to the audience’s emotions which Roosevelt fails to mention (or possibly chooses to ignore) is the body count already totaled by the Axis.  Many lives had already been lost at this point.  His case might have been strengthened if he had mentioned these numbers.  Americans would have been scared for their lives as well if this had been mentioned.

            The speech would hold little importance without the help of ethos.  The ethos for this speech deals with not only the moral character of the orator, but also but also the orator’s knowledge of the subject at hand. When speaking to the body of people, especially in the United States, the title, President, holds a very high importance.  Roosevelt is the elected leader and without his guidance, the country would be a completely different place.  Roosevelt begins to establish his personal ethos from the second paragraph of the speech, “my mind goes back eight years to a night in the midst of a domestic crisis.  It was a time when the wheels of American industry were grinding to a full stop, when the whole banking system of our country had ceased function.  I well remember that while I sat in my study in the White House, preparing to talk to the people of the United States, I had before my eyes the picture of all those Americans with whom I was talking” (409-10).  In those few sentences, Roosevelt reminds that he is the president and he has dealt with a very serious, habilitating crisis in the past, and this crisis is something that was still affecting Americans at the time of his speech.  As for his ethos from knowledge of the war, Roosevelt lets the readers know, “on September 27^th, 1940---this year---by an agreement signed in Berlin, three powerful nations, two in Europe and one in Asia, joined themselves together in the threat that if the United States of America interfered with or blocked the expansion program of these three nations---a program aimed at world control---they would unite in ultimate action against the United States” (410).  His knowledge of this fact lets the audience know that the President knows exactly what they will be up against and he is not scared of the consequences.  By appealing to pathos and ethos, the author’s argument is strengthened.  The audience responds to certain points and when they hear them from somebody who has a proven track record, they know they are in the best hands possible. A very important link between these two appeals is that Americans, being a prideful nation, prefer a knowledgeable President, so they can have pride and trust in him.  Overall, these appeals combined make a strong case for what Roosevelt asks of the American people.  As an American citizen, it would be very hard to turn his request down.  It would almost be a blasphemy of sorts. 

            The direct way that Roosevelt addresses the issue adds exigency and importance to the speech.  He lets the listeners know what is going to happen and just how they can help their country.  His use of pathos and ethos afford him room to ask for such an important task from an entire nation.  These tasks he requests are ways to create preparedness and hopefully economic stimulation. His reliance on timing gives him a base on which to stand.  This is a speech which roused a nation to act and without expert wording and knowledge, it might have had an opposite effect.

Reaction Paper - MLK

Date Written: November 23, 2009

Written For: UCCS English 131 

Let Freedom Ring

            In Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter, he responds to the requests of the clergymen who have clearly stated that the demonstrations are “unwise and untimely.”  These men ask for these demonstrations to be kept in court and the issue to be kept amongst the people of Birmingham and way from outsiders.  King uses an array of information and knowledge to provide a sturdy, well-thought out argument against the clergymen. 

            King has no trouble responding to the clergymen.  These men are of high standing and importance.  Martin Luther King Jr. was a man of great influence during these demonstrations.  King was a pastor and “president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference” (King 253). He wastes no time in establishing his credibility to appeal to these men of such high credibility.  One way King establishes his credibility in connection to his audience is appealing to something they know the best: religion.  Martin Luther King Jr. knows that the laws are unjust and to back up his case, he quotes St. Thomas Aquinas, “an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law” (258).  This is a direct appeal to the belief system of these clergymen, all the while supporting his cause.  King continues, “any law that uplifts human personality is just.  Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.  All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality” (258).  He uses logic to relate the world of St. Thomas Aquinas to his present day struggle.  He then goes on to quote Paul Tillich, a renowned theologian and Christian, “sin is separation” (King 258).  The clergymen would be aware of Tillich and more than likely followers of his beliefs, and in Tillich’s eyes, segregation would be a sin, so it should be with the clergymen.  The church is supposed to be above these human laws and ideals.  The teachings if the Bible include messages of equality and with men who are heads of their congregations not supporting this message, what are the people supposed to do---follow the word of the Lord or follow the men they have entrusted to speak these words?  King uses another religious philosopher’s wording to remind the clergymen that people of color are living, breathing human beings with feelings, “segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an ‘I-it’ relationship for an ‘I-thou’ relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things” (king 258).  He wants these men to realize what it would be like to feel as if you are an object, not a person.

            Preachers often use stories relevent to their congregation, which appeal to the emotions of the people.  Martin Luther King Jr. is a master of this technique.  He asks these clergymen to listen to their hearts when he speaks of the child who asked, “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?” (King 257).   It would break a person's heart to have to answer that question, and that is what King is trying to instill in his audience.  King pushes his emotional appeal a step farther when he speaks of the

 treatment of those men and women behind the closed doors of the jail:

 I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. (King 267)

By using this particular information, King is able to appeal to the clergymen's sense of compassion all the while refuting their claims commending the work of the police officers of Birmingham.  King believes that the police officers “have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators”, however the purpose has been skewed and “they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice”(267, 268).  These men have used a front of nonviolence to only further the agenda of the pro-segregation side, when behind closed doors they are really continuing the hatred and violence.

            These clergymen believe that King is an outsider and the troubles in Birmingham should be settled amongst the people of Birmingham.  He says that as a part of the SCLC and their many affiliates they frequently, “share staff, educational and financial resources with [their] affiliates” (253).   King goes on to tell the clergymen that he was called in to help the people of Birmingham fight the good fight, “but more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here” (253).  He criticizes the clergymen even more by linking injustice in Birmingham to the world, “we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny” (King 253).  He goes on to say “anyone who lives inside the United States can never considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds” (King 253).  King wants these men to realize that he truly is not an outsider, just a man helping out his fellow men for one purpose of peace and equality.

            King wants justice and equality in this world and he is willing to do anything he can as long as it is in the vein of nonviolence.  He believes in this nonviolence because “nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such tension that community which has constantly refused to negotiate, is forced to confront the issue” (King 266).  King knows that this direct focus will pull interest into the situation without fostering a world of hate. His statement on tension is only fostered with the wisdom of the great Socrates, who “felt that was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal” (255).  King knows that the tension will foster a need for a change.  It is human nature to seek out the basis behind tension and work towards eliminating that tension. King is hoping that by nurturing that tension in non-violent way, the movement can head towards progress and a fair solution for everyone involved

            This country was founded on freedom, and that is at the heart of this tension. King

uses that as a point of hope as, “ we will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham, and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom” (267).  King demonstrates the fact that “before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth” (267), people of color were already in America. This is a way of saying the white men are not the only ones with rights. Not only are they not the only ones with rights, but they put people of color through difficulty because, “for more than two centuries, [their] fore-bearers labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation”, however, “out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop” (King, 267).  Reminding the clergymen of this, King urges them to keep this in their thoughts and use their sense of logic.

            Logic is a weapon, any good writer keeps in their arsenal.  Appealing to logic presents the audience with a plethora of information to consider.  First, King used the logic of St. Thomas Aquinas to make a statement to which clergymen were able to relate. Later on in his letter, King uses the words of Thomas Jefferson, which have been apart of the very fight for equality before and since the battle for anti-segregation, “we hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal” (King 263).  This is logic in its simplest form. If all men are created equal, then why is there still segregation? Furthermore, why is the church standing for this intolerance? King relates the youth's disappointment with these men, leaders of the white church, to their possible future, “if today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and to be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century” (King 266).  King knows that the church is losing its younger demographic and he asks the clergymen to use their logic to see the potential damage they are self inflicting.

            In King's letter, he combines many elements in response to the clergymen.  His

knowledge of history and human behavior all effectively create an argument against many of the men's claims. This letter presents a strong and pressing message that can be translated to many audiences and preaches that message to men and women of all ages and races.

Works Cited

King, Martin Luther. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”

          Rhetoric and Writing I: Language Matters. Ed. UCCS Writing Program

          Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press, 2007. 252 – 269. Print.

Recruitment Analysis

Date Written: July 8th, 2015

Written for: GCU - HRM 635

Recruitment of a Star: Effectively Replacing a Key Player in Your Company

            A company is only as strong as their team and losing an employee who not only covers the team in a necessary position, but also occupies a position that is singular in number could cause an upset to the strength of the company.  In the case of Stephen Connor as director of research at Rubin, Stern, and Hertz (RSH), the choice comes down to replacing his company’s key player with a junior, a rising star, or an established star.  While the hiring needs to occur as quickly as possible, there are a number of key factors that Stephen needs to consider in order to find the right fit for RSH’s semiconductor analyst position. 

The Candidates

            After speaking with a trusted recruiter, Craig Robertson, trusted employees, Tom Walters, Beth Tuck, and John Davidson, and unexpectedly, recruiter, Anita Armstrong, Connor narrowed down the interview list to 5 potential players. These players are all strong in their own rights, but leave a bit of room for further consideration.  Out of the five possibilities, two are seasoned stars, two are up and comers, and the final candidate is a wildcard, yet company seasoned junior analyst.

            The two seasoned stars are David Hughes and Gerald Baum.  When referencing Hughes as seasoned, it is important to note that he is older in a business where employees typically burn out by their forties and fifties.  Upon interviewing Baum, Connor discovered that he was a highly negative person.  Considering his instincts, Connor notes, “if a prospective employee expresses too much negativity about his current workplace, it usually indicates that he’s a negative person who’s likely to find his new company distasteful, too” (Groysberg, Balog, & Haimson, 2007, p. 10).  Also, it is worthy to note that Baum’s inability to apologize for tardiness coupled with the negativity establishes him as a person who may be more self involved than a team player, which is the standard at RSH.  While his background and client loyalty would be essential, his cutthroat attitude and inattentiveness to teamwork set him as less of a fit for RSH.  On the other hand, as a highly season employee, David Hughes showed that he knew what he wanted and how he wanted things to run.  His drive also seemed less aggressive as he preferred time with family over a major deal.  This might fit in with the team mentality of RSH or in turn it could take away as it might come across that Hughes prefers selfish ventures over company strengths.

            The two up and comers, Sonia Meetha and Seth Horkum showed a bit more promise than the seasoned stars.  Meetha appears to be a strong, self-motivated rising star with great prospects. She appears a bit less mature than the other two, but she holds promise for fitting in with RSH.  She also doesn’t seem to know everything she has to offer.  Horkum is an opposite, extremely professional and well-prepared, he knows what he has to offer, which also comes off a bit overzealous.  His downfall is that he might become a bit too overzealous in his pursuit of a position that he thinks suits him. 

            The final candidate is Rina Shea.  She is a complete wildcard, but she was the Junior to the incumbent and knows RSH better than all the other candidates.  Connor seems to discount her as a candidate in the light of the other possibilities, which is understandable noting the strengths of the others. She has promise, but she does seem to be on a different level than the other possibilities.

The Hiring Considerations

            Based on the job Peter did, the strength of the candidate needs to already be in place.  The new analyst would need to be able to jump in feet first and know PowerChip as quickly as possible.  Connor must take this into consideration when hiring the best candidate for the job.   As previously stated, each candidate left some stone unturned during their interviews and with this in mind, Connor must keep in mind how far their strengths outweigh their weaknesses.  Can he forgive Baum’s negativity and tardiness?  Is Hughes laissez-faire attitude stronger than his credentials?  Is Sonia Meetha worth the risks and possible immaturity factor?  Is Seth Horkum just a flash in the pan or does he have the potential to keep rising at this new company?  Is Rina Shea truly worth the risk and can she handle the huge, premature jump from junior to senior?

            Comparatively, Rina seems like a strong candidate as she’s already in the position and has worked with RSH for some time.  However, the entry and socialization process could solve this issue.  As a team environment and based on how the second round of interviews was handled, the ability to socialize these new candidates into the company would be easy.  Allowing them to work hand in hand with the group would give them strength and based on how the candidates themselves handled the second interviews, one in particular stands out as the most viable candidate for the position.  This candidate could handle entry and socialization as well as the job in a way that would cost the company little in the way of time. 

            The research and process used by Connor was through and lent itself to a strong candidate pool with a very thorough background understanding of each candidate.  In my opinion, the process used by Connor was very well planned considering the amount of time he had in which to find a feasible candidate for the position.  

The Decision

            Based on all facts presented, my choice for the position is Seth Horkum.  He presents himself as a strong, key player and could fill the role in a positive way.   Assimilating him in to the culture of the company and taking on the job with PowerChip would be easy comparatively.  The biggest concern with him is that he’d take his rising star power and run with it after only being with the company for a small period of time.  This could be mitigated through the use of bonuses and competitive compensation. Also, his overzealousness might prove useful with the quick turnaround.

Final Overview

            In this case study, Stephen Connor was put in a tough position, but his ability to sift through candidates and confirm their strengths and weaknesses through investigation allowed him to find a candidate worthy of the position.  He also has budding stars to keep an eye out for, including Rina, who proves to be a strong candidate for potential senior positions in the future. 

 

                                                                       References

Groysberg, B., Balog, S., & Haimson, J. (2007). Recruitment of a Star. Harvard Business School.

 

West Coast Transit Team Assembly Analysis and Proposal

Date Written: March 16, 2015

Written for: GCU - MGT 605

The West Coast Transit Six: My Team and Our Plan for Success

            Assembling any team is somewhat of an art form.  A manager must carefully piece together a puzzle in order to meld one person’s jagged edges to another person’s strengths.  The nature of West Coast Transit’s problem is so complex and high stakes, that the team assembled for this task must be able to meet a deadline and understand that there are other peoples’ jobs on the line if this task is not completed to its highest extent.
            This team has been chosen in order to properly meld together in a way where one’s strengths play up another’s weaknesses.  As the manager, there are some personality conflicts that are foreseeable, but keeping this team’s eye on the prize and outweighing risk versus reward, those conflicts can easily be mitigated and steered in the right direction by those with proven leadership skills amongst the chosen six.
            With the focus of this team being balance, some employees who have been part of the company the longest were not chosen.  Instead, there are a few newer people who are being given a chance to prove themselves based upon their employee profiles.  In the following team proposal and plan, their strengths and weaknesses, as well as their place in the puzzle will be discussed and then applied to the overall management of the project.

The Dream Team

Elizabeth
            Elizabeth was chosen for her leadership abilities and she is proven to be flexible.  This will put her in as an effective leader, because those who are also on the team will need someone who can understand their strengths and weaknesses and keep thing moving along.  Also, her ability to see the bigger picture of this project and her listening skills will help facilitate the team in a positive manner.  While her biggest weakness being in building new skills, she will be able to focus her energy on playing up her strengths.
Michael
            Michael is the balance to Elizabeth.  He is knowledgeable and his cynicism will hopefully find a worthy adversary in Elizabeth’s positivity.  Like Elizabeth, Michael has some strong leadership skills and he tries to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.  His strategic planning and tactics will also help to keep the team on task.  While he is not detail oriented, Doug will hopefully keep him going with his timeliness and high-quality work. 
Doug
            Doug is a newer employee compared to others on this team.  However, he would be the finisher of the team.  He cares about quality and will be able to edit and send out the work in order to keep the team to its deadline.  His communication preferences differ from Michael, but if they can find a balance, they will both succeed in keeping to this team’s goals.
Bob
            Bob’s length of time with the company will give the team insight into its early successes.  Hopefully Elizabeth’s positivity will be able to keep his positive side out instead of allowing for more surliness.  He will be the team’s go-to man.  While others will have specific functions, his time with the company will give him the ability to take on tasks.  His go-and-get it attitude will definitely play this up.
Susan
            Susan’s positivity will pair well with Elizabeth’s.  Being a team player, she will give the team a needed boost to its work and will understand just what it takes to make this project successful.  She will be a great partner to Bob as the team’s go-to woman.  This team and its many dimensions don’t allow for members who take advantage of situations and therefore will protect Susan and her drive.  One of the best things for Susan on this team is that while she sometimes has trouble with finding motivation, this work is exactly what will keep her going.  The work of this project will hopefully make a difference in people’s lives and that is what motivates her.  Also, as she looks for approval for her work before submission, having Elizabeth as a leader and Doug as the editor will give strength to her purpose.
William
            William also struggles from motivation issues.  Like Susan, the immediate value in the job is saving not only his job, but the jobs of others.  Challenge does not scare him and the amount of challenge within the project will keep him going.  He may be inefficient, but leaders like Elizabeth and Michael should be able to keep him on task. 

The Issues We Face

            While there are a multitude of strengths this team may face, they also have the ability to work together in a way others would not.  Elizabeth and her open-mindedness can’t keep the team afloat on its own.  When conflict arises, Elizabeth can act as mediator to a certain extent, Susan will be needed to mediate some cases.  The majority of this team tends to react poorly to conflict, so facilitating this conflict will take top priority sometimes.  This may cause a set back or two, but if, as managers, we can keep them on track, issues will keep us from losing sight of the bigger picture.
            Motivation seems to mainly work itself out, but management will need to remind the team of the bigger picture.  For those who prefer monetary motivation, they will need to be reminded that all monetary compensation in general is at stake. 

 

Theories at Work

            This team will be managed through a compilation of Herzberg’s Motivator Hygiene Theory and Goal-Setting Theory. Within his study on motivation, Herzberg, “found that hygiene factors, such as job security, salary, and company policies, were important in reducing job dissatisfaction but would not necessarily provide job satisfaction” (DeGraaf, 1995).  At this point, the entire company’s security is at risk and in order to protect it, the members of this team must find the motivation necessary to make it through.  The members of this team show little job dissatisfaction compared to the other possibilities.
            In order to stay on track, this team will need to focus on goals.  These goals must be comprised of one overarching goal—giving the best effort in keeping the company afloat and individual goals as components of the project together.  Goals will be focused on the main goal and the project must stay on task.

 

            While there are possible issues that may come up, we must strive to keep the team going.  This team seems as if they will be able to achieve the goal much better than the others available for selection.  Allowing the team to work as its own separate colony will give them room to thrive and succeed in a way that this company needs. This “dream team” as I have decided to dub them face many challenges ahead, but I have the utmost faith in their abilities to make this project successful. 

 

 

References

DeGraaf, D. (1995, January 1). The Key to Unlocking Your Staff's Potential. Camping Magazine.  Retrieved from http://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=9609201575&site=eds-live&scope=site

Case Study Analysis

Date Written: June 19th, 2015

For: GCU ADM 614

Regulating Nuclear Waste: The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s Growth In Spite of Concerns

            Following the nuclear arms race and the development of atomic warfare, the United States was looking for a way in which to safely dispose of the harmful waste, which held radiation levels harmful to most humans.  This waste could not be disposed of in a traditional dump nor could it be delivered out to sea; these trepidations lead to the development of a plant, which answered all concerns about the radioactive waste.  This analysis will strive to further understand the work done by this plant and how the plant could be affected by regulation on both a private and public level.
            The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, the only one of its kind, is an underground limestone depository in Southeastern New Mexico supported by the Department of Energy.  It is touted as “the nation's only repository for the disposal of nuclear waste known as transuranic or TRU…[which] consists of clothing, tools, rags, residues, debris, soil and other items contaminated with small amounts of plutonium and other man-made radioactive elements” (WIPP Update, 2015).  While such a plant appears necessary due to the amount of hazardous material produced following the Cold War era, there are still concerns about safety practices as well as incentives within the city of Carlsbad, New Mexico towards WIPP and its subsidiaries.  
            Originally, the socioeconomic impact of WIPP on New Mexico was touted to be large and hold strong long-term benefits.  However, concerns about WIPP and the economy in Carlsbad as well as competition from the oil companies during what is one of the largest oil-boom decades in New Mexico history, show that the impact of WIPP might not be as strong as earlier predicted and partnerships between the Department of Energy, WIPP, and companies such as URS Energy and Construction, Inc. might be receiving benefits beyond those seen by the economy of Southeastern New Mexico.  Also, the fact that the Department of Energy allocated a $1.9 million bonus to WIPP as compensation for their excellent progress and safety efforts, only days after an underground fire, raises concerns as to the distribution of funds without proper evaluation of the situations (Villagram, 2014).  This incident is one of many that have occurred at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in recent years and by offering incentives for “safety” and not following through with monitoring situations, it does not promise to be the last situation.  According to the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), “the DOE has long escaped outside regulation and public scrutiny under the guise of ‘national security,’ leading to numerous instances of serious safety and health hazards for individuals and communities across the nation” (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, n.d.).  This oversight in regulation coupled with concerns over shared ownership beg the question, how far is too far when it comes to a private entity and public entity sharing ownership of a company—especially one with such a volatile and controversial purpose?

While the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is a shared entity, they still struggle with the issues of safety as to ability for privatization.  Nuclear waste creates a multitude of issues that are harder for the government to mitigate as far as contracts are concerned.  If Westinghouse, Haliburton, or any other partner corporation wanted to take over, the option would be there, but inherent risks would exist. Privatization of such a company would lead to increased responsibility for whichever of the private shareholders chose to take majority.  Any incident with the TRU could lead into bad publicity for the private owner. 

Looking at it from the other perspective, by turning the property solely under Public domain, the outside contract work that has lowered costs and provided area economic support could dwindle.  Issues with keeping the property rights under government ownership, according to Holcombe (2006), “is that individuals will consider the private costs and benefits but will not have the incentive to weigh the public costs and benefits, which will accrue to the public as a whole” (p. 59).  Keeping this in mind, by taking that focus away from the public, more issues may arise as to the oversight of the regulation of the plant.  Whistleblowers can be useful to the success of any regulatory plan and utilizing those who believe their rights are being violated by nuclear waste transport to their area may serve as better regulation than a private company under government regulation.

There are numerous concerns over the individual rights, which can be mitigated with the use of whistleblowers.  Those who live in the community or in surrounding communities through which waste has to be transported have more power than one might imagine.  With cases of whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden becoming everyday news, many people are on the look out for the next big break.  By regulating on a community level, this plant may be able to survive as a solely government entity.  In turn, it seems that the Department of Energy might do well under self-regulation.  While one outer regulatory agency, the Environmental Protection Agency might suggest that the plant is reaching high safety standards, “DOE and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), a federal oversight agency--have raised questions about WIPP operations, mainly in regard to worker safety but also touching on equipment and electrical failures” (Amid other safety issues, 2010).  By noting that the plant may be putting its employees at risk and if those employees are to voice their concerns as well, the program might be able to survive as an exclusive government entity.

Following this analysis, I would suggest a nationalization of the plant bringing it completely under the public sector. In doing this, the program would face stronger self-regulation, which in turn would be held to public standards as stated by the community surrounding the plant.  Groups such as the AFSCME and the people of Carlsbad, New Mexico would participate in regulating the program and therefore supplement regulatory boards, as the Freedom of Information Act would entitle them to further information from a public group.   The major downfall to this action would be a decrease in jobs from the private sector companies involved.  This could be mitigated through increase public sector employment opportunities, but their income and output would not necessarily be the same as private sector careers. 

While there is no set answer to the issues involved with the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, understanding the issues that come about through publicly and privately shared entities are necessary to realize that the current set up is not working as well as one might hope.  By working through the issues and discovering the root of the problem, it appears that choosing one path might be to the benefit of W.I.P.P., Carlsbad, the surrounding communities, and the nuclear waste communities.  Until these issues are resolved, safety bonuses allotted days after fires might continue to be put out and regulation will continue to suffer in the case of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

 

 

                                                                       References

Adcock, L. (1980, September). Socioeconomic study for the proposed waste isolation    pilot plant. Sandia National Laboratories. Retrieved May 4, 2015, from http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl6780966

Amid other safety issues, EPA recertifies WIPP. (2010). Energy Daily, (225), 4-4. Retrieved  2015, from http://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=57234406&site=eds-live&scope=site

Holcombe, R. (2006). Public sector economics: The role of government in the American economy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Villagram, L. (2014, July 20). WIPP contractor received $1.9M bonus after fire. Albuquerque Journal. Retrieved May 4, 2015, from http://www.abqjournal.com/432263/news/wipp-contractor-received-19m-bonus-after-fire.html

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). (n.d.). Retrieved June 11, 2015, from http://www.afscme.org/members/conventions/resolutions-and-amendments/1992/resolutions/86-waste-isolation-pilot-plant-wipp

WIPP Update. (2015). Retrieved May 4, 2015, from    http://www.wipp.energy.gov/wipprecovery/recovery.html

WRES. (2004). Waste Isolation Pilot Plant biennial environmental compliance report. Washington Regulatory and Environmental Services. Doi: 10.2172/925567