What are some of the primary reasons people resist change?

1- What are some of the primary reasons people resist change? What are some of the ways a team leader can ensure that change is accepted or at least not resisted?.

2- Compare and NSG 6620 All Week Discussions Latest SUcontrast formal groups and informal groups. Explain the importance of leadership in both types of groups.

your assignment # 5 relates to an “Group Dynamics” from chapter 9 “Group Development and Team Building” by Mosley, Pietri and Mosley, designed to reinforce the learning objectives of the course, and in conjunction with the final exam will provide a measure of your material’s knowledge and critical thinking skills. Your question analysis and preparation will require for you to complete the reading for Chapter 9 * Answer the following questions: 1- What are some of the primary reasons people resist change? What are some of the ways a team leader can ensure that change is accepted or at least not resisted?. 2- Compare and contrast formal groups and informal groups. Explain the importance of leadership in both types of groups. * Your answers must be written in a short essay format APA Style of Writing, no less than a full page per answer (2 pages in total) in written content. with multiple academic resources and citations to support the writing content. Forces Causing Change Numerous factors affect an organization. Continuously changing forces leading to or caus-ing change originate both outside and within the organization, as shown in Exhibit 9-1. You might compare this situation to yourself. You must respond to such external stimuli as the condition of the weather, the requirements of your daily work schedule, and the differ-ent needs arising each day. Also requiring responses are the internal stimuli, such as your hunger level, the state of your health, or your attitude. A similar situation exists when we substitute an organization for the individual. External Change Forces Management has little control over the strong impact of numerous external change forces. Yet an organization depends on and must interact with its external environment if it is to survive.

What are some of the primary reasons people resist change?

Specifically, resources, profits, and customers for products and services are all from the outside. Therefore, any force that impacts or changes the environment affects the organization’s operations and brings about pressures requiring a change response. External forces—from technological advancements to consumers’ changing requirements—cause an organization to alter its goals, structure, and methods of conducting business. Internal Change Forces Change forces also come from within. Internal change forces may result from different organization goals or new challenges, as in the case of Family Dollar, or they may be caused by new quality initiatives, changing technologies, or employee attitudes. For example, shift-ing the goal from short-run profit to long-term growth directly impacts the daily work of most departments and may lead to a reorganization that streamlines overall operations. Changing to automated equipment and robotics to perform work previously done by people causes changes in work routines and just-in-time supplies. Altering incentive programs and personnel policies and procedures may result in different hiring and selection procedures. Employee attitudes about child and/or parent care, insurance needs, or flexible working hours may change daily business practices. External and internal forces for change are often interrelated, not isolated from one another. At times, this linkage results from the changes in values and attitudes affecting people within the system. Some of these changes from within are from people who have entered the organization. For example, many of the changes now occurring in organiza-tions are the result of the increasing availability of a highly trained workforce, including the need for increased flexibility and responsiveness of the organization to employees’ and customers’ needs and a flattened hierarchy allowing greater responsibility to be placed with frontline workers. Planned Change For management to plan for change, it must decide what needs to be changed in the organization. In general, management seeks to change things that prevent greater organizational effectiveness. Organizational effectiveness results from activities that improve the organization’s structure, technology, and people so it can achieve its objectives. The nature of the problem causing the organization to be less than ideally effective determines the choice of the particular technique used to achieve change. From a choice of alternatives, management determines which one is most likely to produce the desired outcome. Diagnosing the problem includes defining the outcome desired from the change. In general, the desired outcome is either improved employee behavior or activities that result in improved performance. This can be achieved by changing the organization’s structure, technology, and/or people (Exhibit 9-2). This classification of organizational elements in no way implies a distinct division among elements. According to the systems concept, a change in one element is likely to affect other elements. In general, the more change that is required, the more likely it is management will change all three elements. Management must decide the desired outcomes and the type of change programs to use to modify the specific organizational element—including those activities needed to get the work done effectively (Exhibit 9-2). Changing the organization’s structure involves modifying and rearranging internal relationships. This includes such variables as authority–responsibility relationships, communications systems, workflows, and size and composition of work groups. Changing the organization’s technology may require modifying such factors as tools, equipment, and machinery; research direction and techniques; engineering processes; and production system, including layout, methods, and procedures. Changing technology may result from or contribute to altering tasks to be performed. Products and other inputs may be revised. For example, mechanization changes the nature of work performed. Changing the organization’s people may include revising recruiting and selection policies and procedures, training and development activities, reward systems, and/or managerial leadership and communication. Supervisors and employees are likely to support change if they perceive the change is directed at the real cause of the problem, such as being an effective solution, and not affecting them adversely. Most importantly, those who participate in a change process respond entirely differently than those merely affected by it. Exhibit 9-3 shows these different responses to change. Next, we turn to the study of group dynamics that provides greater insight into creating a climate of positive change. Importance of Work Groups To achieve synergy and gain the most from employees, organizations require groups. Synergy means the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This is especially applicable when using teams and ad hoc task forces. Assume a five-person ad hoc task force is given the opportunity to solve a problem that has an impact on the entire organization. If the team reaches a synergistic solution to the problem, then synergy can be mathematically defined as 1+1+1+1+1= more than 5. It is important for supervisors to understand the basic concepts of group or team development because work groups or teams produce the synergistic effect needed for management to reach its goals. What Are Groups? Groups have been defined in various ways. The definition we prefer is a group is two or more people who communicate and work together regularly in pursuit of one or more com-mon objectives. This highlights that at least two individuals must work together to con-stitute a group. If a group becomes too large, interaction among all members is difficult. This leads to the evolution of smaller groups. Remember, one finding of the Hawthorne studies was groups could be either supportive of organizational goals or opposed to them overall. Types of Groups Groups in organizations are either formal or informal. Formal groups are those created by the organization. The most common example is the group formed by a manager and his or her immediate team members. Informal groups evolve out of the formal organization but are not formed by management. Neither are they shown in the organization’s structure. An example would be a friendship group that enjoys discussing sports during lunch. Formal groups are deliberately formed by management and are often shown on the organizational chart. For example, command groups are formal groups composed of staff who report to a designated manager, such as a group of vice presidents for worldwide mar-keting. Committees and task forces are additional examples of formal groups. Exhibit 9-4 illustrates how one manager can be a member of several different groups while employed by one organization. Next, we discuss several formal organizational groups in more detail. Network groups are dispersed and require collaboration and coordination across differ-ent projects and sometimes from groups outside the organization. The members’ roles and responsibilities are based on connections, collaboration, and a targeted expertise. The idea that groups need to be viewed as part of a network working within an organization is taking on greater prominence. The reasons for this are (1) many groups are formed and disbanded quickly, not allowing for normal group dynamics to emerge; (2) teams are dislocated across cities and countries and composed of members who work on multiple projects within many different teams; and (3) these groups frequently require collaboration and coordina-tion across different projects and sometimes from groups outside the organization. When groups are viewed as a network, the roles and responsibilities of group members are based on connections, collaboration, and a targeted expertise. The leader and follower roles and responsibilities shift as necessary away from a hierarchical structure to one where natural leaders may emerge, decision making is decentralized, and relationships, both within and outside of the organization, are cultivated. Virtuoso groups are composed of top performers who excel in their respective spe-cialties and are usually focused on important performance issues. Whereas most groups celebrate diversity of thought and background, virtuoso groups attempt to put together only people who excel in their respective specialties while disregarding possible manage-rial skills, diversity of thought, or other relational considerations. While this sounds like a great idea, and it sometimes is, it also presents unique challenges. For instance, just because someone is an expert at a particular task does not mean he or she works well with others. In fact, finding a team leader able to manage a group of prima donnas who know they are the best can be the most difficult aspect of managing a virtuoso group. Virtuoso groups differ from traditional ones in most dimensions. They bring in members only for their top skills, celebrate the individual egos of team members, force members into physical proxim-ity, and focus on creativity over efficiency. A Virtual groups or teams is dislocated—and mostly, if not exclusively, meet online. While all groups are dislocated to some extent (different floors and offices prevent some communication and cohesion), virtual groups can face the added challenges of different time zones, less frequent verbal communications, the lack of a physical presence, and any informal interactions that lead to social ties among more co-located groups. These chal-lenges make it more difficult for collaboration, but virtual groups provide some advan-tages such as the ability to tap into more diverse and talented members, and better cost advantages. Thus, if companies emphasize and provide teamwork opportunities within these groups, promote leadership within these groups, and allow for periodic faceto-face meetings through direct meetings or web teleconferences, virtual groups can be just as productive as co-located groups. Self-managing work groups have become more common today, partly because of man-agement’s efforts to sustain competitive advantages through downsizing, increased effi-ciencies, enhanced technologies, etc. Europe was in the forefront of experimenting with self-managing work teams, but managers in Canada and the United States quickly followed, using these types of groups/teams as building blocks of a corporate renaissance in produc-tivity. In Exhibit 9-5, strategies for implementing self-managing work groups successfully are presented. Illustrated here is the experience of a small southern plant. A small parts plant is owned by a large corporation and employs 320 workers. Most of the self-managed work teams consist of eight to 12 members who select their own leader. At the next level are coordinators, who work with several teams. The coordinators report to an upper-management group called the support team and operate primarily as devel-opmental leaders. Their basic leadership practice is to encourage the teams to do things themselves—to be self-managing. Under this structure, there are productivity gains of significantly more than 20 percent.6 Even companies that rely on an appointed leader make use of some forms of empower-ment, a key concept of self-managed work groups and teams. Michael Lloyd Odom, who received IBM’s Global Project Manager of the Year award, is a prime example. One of Mike’s projects ran into some difficulty, and he received a lot of negative feedback about one of the team members. Although this team member had good technical skills, he was insecure, and with the layoffs he feared he would lose his job. If there was a problem on the project, he pointed a finger and accused other team members of being at fault. As a consequence, a lot of defensive behavior took place within the team. Mike called the problem employee in, held up the mirror, and gave him the feedback. Mike received from other team members. He also urged the employee to bring any issue or problem to the team as a whole and not criticize individual members. He emphasized winning or losing as a team. He also called in other team members, one at a time, and asked for support in changing this employee’s attitude to help him become a team player. The problem employee turned his behavior around, and the project was successful at meeting or exceeding objectives.7 From his experiences, Mike Odom learned valuable lessons about how to manage a group effectively that he shares with us and can be applied to true self-managed groups or hybrids. 1. “IBM values its people as a key asset. It places a high priority on development of its people. I share the strong belief that people are your greatest asset.” 2. “You need to understand the principles of managing a project.” 3. “To be successful you have to build a good team; picking a good team is the first step.” 4. “You need to be a good coach and work with people to help them understand what it takes to be successful.” 5. “A key thing is to understand you are not alone. We are a lot smarter as a team than we are as individuals.” 6. “Attitude can make all the difference in the world, not only from the standpoint of the team leader, but from the standpoint of all team contributors.” 7. “A team leader’s management style can make the difference between a high-performing team and a team that just gets the job done.” 8. “I think having good coaching skills is even more important than good technical skills in project management.” Informal groups evolve out of the employees’ need for social interaction, friendship, communication, and status. Although not a part of the formal organization, an informal group can sometimes be the same as a formal work team. The group members might give more allegiance to the informal leader than to the formal manager. Other types of informal groups cross formal work team boundaries and are based on common interests. An informal interest group may come together to seek increased fringe benefits or attempt to solve a particularly broad-based software problem. Another type of informal group is a friendship group. Its members also have common interests, but they are more social in nature. Such groups could include a running team, a band, or the people who gather to chat during a break. In general, informal groups provide a valuable service by helping members meet affiliation and social needs. Ideally, management tries to create an environment in which the needs and objectives of informal groups are similar to the needs and objectives of the formal organization. In a team environment, the leader functions like a coach, picking the right members, helping them develop their skills, and recognizing their individual and team achievements. How Groups Develop B. W. Tuckman developed a model of small-group development that encompasses four stages of growth.followed by later researchers9 interpersonal relations, both essential concerns of any group. Stages of Group Development The stages of group development defined by Tuckman are (1) forming, (2) storming, (3) norming, and (4) performing. There is some overlap between the stages, and the length of time spent in each stage can vary. However, the cen-tral concept is a group usually remains in a stage until key issues are resolved before moving to the next stage. Sometimes a group appears to resolve key issues but really has not. In this case, after moving to the next stage, the group shifts back to the earlier stage to resolve the unsettled issue. The characteristics of each stage follow. Stage 1: Forming This is the stage in which members first come together and form initial impressions. Among other things, they try to determine the task of the group and their role expectations of one another. In this stage, members depend on a leader to provide considerable structure in establishing an agenda and guidelines because they tend to be unsure of what is expected of them. Stage 2: Storming The storming stage is typically a period of conflict and—ideally—organization. Conflicts arise over goals, task behaviors (that is, who is responsible for what), and leadership roles. Relationship behaviors emerge because people have strong feelings and express them, sometimes in a hostile manner. It is a mistake to suppress conflict; the key is to manage it. If a group gets through stage 2 successfully, it becomes organized and begins developing norms, rules, and standards. Stage 3: Norming This is a stage of developing teamwork and group cohesion and cre-ating openness of communications with information sharing. Members feel good about one another and give each other positive feedback, and the level of trust and cooperation is usually quite high. These desirable characteristics of team development result from estab-lishing agreed-on goals and finalizing the processes, standards, and rules by which the group will operate. If the issues of the earlier stages have not been resolved, the group can regress. Later in this chapter, we will discuss norms in more detail. Stage 4: Performing This is the stage at which the group shows how efficiently and effectively it can operate to achieve its goals. Information exchange develops to the point of joint problem solving, and there is shared leadership. As one organizational behavior text points out, “Some groups continue to learn and develop from their experiences and new inputs. . . . Other groups—especially those that have developed norms not fully supportive of efficiency and effectiveness—may perform only at the level needed for their survival.” Thus, group development, like individual development, is a continuing process. Evaluating Groups Groups, whether formal or informal, are a fact of organizational life. In this section, we discuss important advantages and limitations of groups. Advantages of Groups Among the major advantages of groups are they (1) provide members with opportunities for need satisfaction and (2) may function more effectively than individuals. Provide Opportunities for Need Satisfaction Group membership provides an opportunity for members to satisfy security and relationship needs as well as higher-level esteem and self-actualization needs. Group membership can be highly satisfying. For example, being viewed as a member of a high-performing problem-solving task force brings out feelings of pride. At times, a task you perceive as drudgery may actually turn out to be less distasteful when you are working together in a group. May Function More Effectively Than Individuals Synergy is the concept that two plus two can equal five. This is one of the major potential advantages of groups. The combination of members possessing different perspectives, experiences, and job skills can often work in a team’s favor. Moreover, individuals operating as a group may feel a collective responsibility that often leads to higher motivation and commitment. Limitations of Groups Among the general limitations of groups are they may (1) encourage social loafing, (2) diffuse responsibility, and (3) be less effective than individuals. Encourage Social Loafing Social loafing is the term used to describe “taking a free ride” when working with others as a team. We have all known team members who did not pull their weight as part of a team writing a group term paper or putting together a classroom presentation. Generally, social loafing occurs because some members genuinely believe their contributions to the group are not significant or they hope for a free ride. Free riders are reinforced when they receive rewards or recognition on an equal basis with those who have carried the greater load. Diffuse Responsibility The diffusion of responsibility among members of a group is somewhat related to social loafing and is also one of its major causes. Because each person may be expected to do only a part of a project, no one person may feel totally responsible Employees who work in groups often find they are able to accomplish more than they can by working alone. In addition, working in a group can be a satisfying social experience. Diffused responsibility may result in groups assuming positions individual members would not take if held individually accountable. The “Oh, what the heck” attitude, as well as the idea “they” will handle it, leads to more liberal risk taking. This also means the more mun-dane, routine, and undesirable group tasks may be neglected by individual members in the hope someone else will complete them. May Be Less Effective Than Individuals Although the concept of synergy is an attractive argument in favor of group effort, the sad fact is sometimes two plus two equals three. One classic study showed this effect dramatically. One would expect a group of three pulling on a rope to exert three times the pulling power each could attain separately. Such was not the case: Groups exerted a force only two and a half times the average of individual performance.11 Thus, as a result of social loafing, diffusion of responsibility, and other factors, groups may not necessarily be more productive and effective than individuals. Determining Group Effectiveness What are the key factors determining the effectiveness of groups? Exhibit 9-6 highlights the essential variables affecting group satisfaction, goal accomplishment, and productiv-ity. As the model demonstrates, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between leadership (the causal variable), group characteristics (the intervening variables), and the end result variables. Variables affecting group effectiveness are (1) group size, (2) member composi-tion and roles, (3) norms, and (4) group cohesiveness Group Size Without question, the size of the work group has an impact on a group’s effectiveness. The size of a group depends to a large extent on its purpose. Organizations can take a contingency approach to determining a manager’s span of control, which influ-ences the size of the natural group. With the increasing use of committees, task forces, quality circles, and self-managing work teams, we need additional guidelines for deter-mining the size of these types of groups. Exhibit 9-7 provides guidelines on the effects of size on group leadership, members, and group processes. It has been our experience the ideal size for a problem-solving group is five to seven members. As Exhibit 9-7 highlights, with this size, there is less chance for differences to arise between the leader and members, less chance of domination by a few members, and less time required for reaching decisions. In company and project workshops, we usually use ad hoc task forces of five to seven to study an issue and report back to the larger group with a recommended plan of action. Almost invariably, the action plan is accepted with only minor modifications. The one time we ran into difficulty was when we used a larger group—14 people—to develop an action plan. In that instance, the reported agreement was later sabotaged by a subgroup of the original group of 14. Their complaint was the agreement had been rushed through by two of the more dominating members. On the other hand, one study has found a group of 14 members is the ideal size for a fact-finding group.12 depends on the group’s purpose.This shows once again the ideal size Member Composition and Roles The composition of a group has considerable impact on productivity. At the minimum, the ability of members to carry out the mission is a major factor. The more alike members are in age, background, value systems, education, personality type, and so forth, the more similarly they see things. The literature suggests for tasks that are relatively simple and require maximum cooperation, homogeneous groups are superior.13 differing backgrounds are superior because a greater number of different ideas would be generated, increasing the probability of creativity. Whatever the group’s composition, key task and maintenance roles must be carried out if the group is to be effective (Exhibit 9-8). In carrying out the group’s activities, members tend to shift back and forth between these roles naturally. This is especially true in prob-lem-solving groups and regular work teams where the formal leader is skillful in getting everyone to participate. Many members in a problem-solving group play several task or maintenance roles. Unfortunately, ineffective roles or behaviors, such as dominating, can have a negative impact on group effectiveness (see Exhibit 9-8). The skill is for the leader to operate so members share the leadership role and ineffective behaviors are minimized. Exhibit 9-9 is a questionnaire allowing individual members of a group to assess how well they function in helping the group achieve its goals and in minimizing ineffective behaviors. Another way to approach member composition and roles is from a team player or fol-lower style perspective. Becoming a team player and a good follower may be as important as, if not more important than, having or being a good leader. Being a good follower starts with understanding your own team player style and finding a way to match that style with what the leader and the team need. There are four types or styles: contributors, collabora-tors, communicators, and challengers. Any style can be effective, but each style contributes differently. Contributors. These are task-oriented, dependable team members who provide good technical data, do their homework when requested, push the team to set a high bar for performance, and use team resources wisely. Basically, contributors help keep the group or team focused on the task Collaborators. These are goal-directed, big-picture team members who see the ultimate goal as overriding but are flexible and open to new ideas, pitch in when and where neces-sary, and share the limelight with other team members. Collaborators’ main role is to keep the members focused on the team’s actual purpose. Communicators. These are process-oriented, positive-people team members who are effective listeners and facilitators of any conflict among team members. They build consen-sus, provide feedback, and keep the group relaxed through informal relations. These roles of the communicators fill the social and emotional needs of the group or team. Challengers. These are questioning, open, and candid team members who are willing to disagree, banter, contest assumptions, and encourage the team to take calculated risks when appropriate. Challengers play the role of devil’s advocate when necessary and push the team to move out of its comfort zone. These roles are not exclusive, meaning group members can have more than one role and, in fact, similar to the MBTI, most members share characteristics and preferences of several of these team player responsibilities. You also may note each role has a primary style associated with it—that is, the style of the challenger is to question. Teams need all four roles to be successful, so small teams need players to assume the role of multiple styles while larger teams may have members assume one primary role. Norms Norms are generally thought of as rules of behavior developed by group mem-bers to provide guidance for group activities. Norms, standards, and action plans in an effective team are highly interrelated and supportive of the organization’s goals. However, if a group is not well led, negative norms result, working against the organization’s goals. An example of a negative norm is an informal leader in a construction team sending the message, “Don’t rush the work—they’ll just give you more to do.” The critical role of leadership is especially important in influencing positive norms. An example of a positive norm is the informal leader in a marketing group sending the mes-sage, “Make sure it looks nice—we want to be proud of our work.” Business ethics are simi-lar to norms because they provide guides to behavior. The top leadership of an organization has significant influence on ethical normative values of groups as well as individuals. Group Cohesiveness Group cohesiveness is the mutual liking and team feeling in a group. As we have already seen, size plays a major part in the cohesiveness of a group. Another major factor is the frequency of communication. In the partnering workshops we conducted, communications were frequently issue-oriented. This led to the development of group cohesiveness. Agreement on overall goals, with the processes and plans to achieve those goals, also enhances group cohesiveness. Conversely, the major factors preventing group cohesiveness are dysfunctional conflicts, internal power struggles, and failure to achieve goals. However, sometimes a group will be congenial, agree on goals, and feel like a team, yet fail in its mission. Three other concepts that play a key role in healthy group development are listening, team A collection of people who must rely on group cooperation. Determine what is involved in team building.supporting, and differing. How many times have you been in a group discussion and been cut off in midsentence? How many times have you thought about the point you want to make next rather than listening to the other person? Sometimes we find ourselves respond-ing to another person’s idea or suggestion with the thought, “That’s a great idea—I would never have come up with that.” At those moments, it is important to give positive feedback in support of the suggestion if we want to create a supportive group environment for generating ideas. Finally, and perhaps most important for creativity in groups, is establishing an environment in which people can disagree without being disagreeable. In several of the end-of-chapter activities, you have an opportunity to solve an unfamiliar problem first on your own and then in a small group. While working in the small group, make a conscious effort to carry out the concepts of listening, supporting, and differing. Different Approaches to Team Building Now that you have insight into groups and group dynamics, we focus on teams and team building. Many supervisors are now shifting to the role of team leader, so we use that term throughout the remainder of this chapter. A team is a collection of people who must relyon group cooperation if the team is to experience the most success possible and thereby achieve its goals.15 Experience has demonstrated successful teams are empowered to estab-lish some or all of a team’s goals, make decisions about how to achieve those goals, under-take the tasks required to meet them, and be mutually accountable for their results.16 Unfortunately, a number of teams do not achieve their optimum success and potential. This is often caused by the team leader’s leadership style being too autocratic or permis-sive in managing the group. Consequently, several of the characteristics of an effective team are lacking. These characteristics are shown in Exhibit 9-10. The following sections illustrate how the characteristics of an effective team are implemented through the use of organizational team building. Teams and organizations may not be successful because they fail at one or more of the following concepts, first identified by the renowned leadership expert John W. Gardner: 1. effective leadership at the top of the team and/or organization; 2. effective recruitment of good and talented people; and 3. the creation of an environment so good and talented people grow and develop To gain insight into how effective these concepts and characteristics are, we examine team building in the financial industry. Team Building in the Financial Sector SEI (NASDAQ: SEIC) is an international provider of asset management, investment pro-cessing, and investment operations software for institutional and wealth management funds. The company’s clients include banks, investment advisors and managers, institu-tional investors, and affluent individuals.17 As one would imagine, SEI’s stock, like most other finance-related businesses, did not perform well during the economic meltdown of 2008–2009. However, SEI had the potential for strong growth as it emerged from the downturn.the optimism. Consider the following description of team structures at SEI. When a new employee joins SEI, it is an unusual experience. The new hire is given a map and sent down to a storeroom on the lower floor of the main building. There, the employee is issued a chair and desk, both on wheels, with a computer and phone on the desktop. The map shows where in the complex of nine barnlike buildings on the corpo-rate campus in Oaks, Pennsylvania, the new hire will initially be located. The employee then rolls the desk through the buildings, into the oversized elevators designed for this purpose, and past hallways filled with a provocative (and sometimes shocking) collection of contemporary art. In a large, open room (filled with similar desks on wheels), the employee finds the spot on the map, nudges neighboring desks aside and pulls down a thick, red wire that snakes down from the ceiling, containing computer, phone, and electrical connections. Once this “python” is plugged in, the company computer recognizes the new employee and routes calls or visitors to the location. Welcome to work. The message from Day One is clear. This is an organization that is flexible, creative, and ready for constant transformation. The company is open and not hierarchical. The atmosphere and dress code is [sic] business casual. There are no corner offices—or offices at all. There is no need for an open-door policy because there are no doors. Employees are empowered. They can pick up their entire “office” and move to another location to join another team. On average, with the exception of a few anchored depart-ments, they relocate about twice a year. This may sound unsettling—but that is the point. In a world in which the business environment can change overnight, particularly in financial services, this design gives SEI the flexibility and the mind-set to transform itself just as quickly. While this might not work for every organization, the buildings and artwork at SEI are designed to reflect the culture of the organization. This environment has helped make SEI a perennial member of Fortune’s list of “Best Companies to Work for in America.” Reference Mosley, D. C., Jr., D.C. M., & Pietri, P. H. (2018). Supervisory Management: The Art of Inspiring, Empowering, and Developing (10th ed.). Cengage Learning US. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9780357453889