The punishment should always fit the crime, but as a Grad student I can see how plagiarism could be treated a little more seriously. If we can make a general agreement as to what plagiarism actually is, I believe it would be the intent to copy, misuse, or misinterpret someone else’s work without permission or proper citation. By taking that general belief I would say that any panel filled with professors and peers should remove the offender from the school if he/she is found guilty of blatant disregard to the rules. However, it is important that the college has CLEAR guidelines and regulations for students to adhere to. Once a student is found guilty they should be judged, just like in our court system on precedent.
On a more lenient side (which in most cases of plagiarism should probably be used more frequently) I believe that proper education would suit the student and faculty better. I guarantee that once caught on a minor infringement, if a student is sentenced to more training, such as SARI, he/she will not plagiarize again. Also in small cases, first time offenders shouldn’t lose grades on papers, maybe mark them down a grade, but a zero could be pushing it, especially if the student is unaware of their fault.
Some will say that Warner is correct in that a blending of cultures is necessary to do business across borders, however as the manager of the venturing firm I would be cautious as to how far my company goes to integrate a foreign structure. As we have studied all semester, what makes a transition such as this possible is the similarities in the two countries. If I were to venture abroad I wouldn’t take unnecessary risks to “fit” into another’s cultures and beliefs in order to jeopardize what has made my firm strong in the first place. One the other hand, I do believe that some cultural mixing is important in the lower-levels of the firm, interaction between shift managers and workers, benefit packages etc. can be altered. But as a whole I want my company to stay as close to the original as possible. Once a successful model has been set in place then and only then would I be willing to incorporate additional cultural orientations.
Another form of JV alliance we discussed in class would be an equity alliance. This form of agreement would allow both parties to feel mutually invested into a project. When entering foreign markets it is important to know your entry partners have similar if not the same ideas, beliefs and vision that you may have. This allows for quicker adaptation into markets. Also as a partner in a JV one needs to feel comfortable with the amount of control he/she has over their partner. Without high engagement entry modes it is very difficult for one side to have an influence on what the other side produces or sells/markets to.
LE employees are like most Americans.
At LE the company culture that upper management has built plays on what all Americans are taught to believe. Piecework sets wages to how much work one completes. The more/harder you work the more you can earn. In the case I didn’t read anything that set limits as to how much an employee could produce in a period of time. Therefore, I can assume that as each employee has the ability to make as many products as they can to benefit themselves.
The LE case also points out there was no paid holidays. In most companies this in not questionable, everyone must receive paid holidays. LE on the other hand doesn’t reward their employees for not coming to work. Its doors were open six days a week which further encouraged workers to work as much as possible. This strategy plays on those who are work-a-holics (like most US citizens) who value money, which leads to power and then respect. The more pieces one assembles the more one can potentially enhance his own self. This strategy can’t be effective everywhere but it definitely works for LE.
As a side note, we can see that this approach isn’t copied verbatim overseas. There are different compensation set-ups which benefit the host country and plays to their culture.
I don’t believe it is easy for a company that has a traditional track record of paying hourly wages and yearly bonuses to switch to piecework compensation. If we really think about it this is changing the entire way companies market their products (requires more sales if you know your employees will produce more) and insurance (your company can be more at risk if you become lax on standards). I just feel that LE has a huge comparative advantage and makes their industries very hard for competition to compete in.
In the early years of LE, it demonstrated comparative advantage over its competitors. The 36 percent market share in welding and equipment is only added proof that LE was able to implement an effective compensation and management strategy.
Another contribution to LE’s Comparative advantage was its ability to embrace international markets before NAFTA and the EU were formed. This advanced thinking, although was not successful at first, is the reason LE established plants in eight different countries. This globalization also contributes to the highest net income (61.5 million) in recent years (1987-95).
What sets Jeff’s opinion a part from Dan’s is that although any firm can introduce the LE company culture and, and merit systems, they do not. This does not mean that LE doesn’t have a comparative advantage. Let’s put this in today’s terms. Wal-Mart, we can all agree on has a competitive advantage over its industry. Its ability to implement effective ERP systems and influence its suppliers is above and beyond what any company is willing to do. We all know what makes Wal-Mart a giant but why aren’t more firms able to achieve this? It is not because they can’t, but because they choose not to along with the fact that Wal-Mart already dominates the majority of the market. (Like LE, compared to its competitors).
In Lincoln Electrics case its competitive advantages might not be the individual products they make, but rather the people they have making the products. LE’s ability to motivate employees based their own individualistic needs sets it apart from the average company and therefore serves as its CA.
Jeff brings a point in my argument that I may have overlooked, all models must be updated. Perhaps the reason why I like the Khanna model is because it doesn’t have to be updated as much as the discount/premium rate. As a manager making important decisions I would like to have some stability in the process. Dan says he believes the discount/premium rate needs to be tailored to an individual country. Whereas I believe it is more practical use the Khanna model and tailor it fit the company and what it is looking for.
Malesic’s “paradox of plagiarism” refers to the thought that in order for a student to cheat and not get caught he/she has to possess the skills needed to disguise an author’s work to make it look like one’s own. If a student has these reading and writing abilities then they should be able to do their own work without cheating.
I think this is an interesting question, if I could disguise an authors work to make it look like my own, I don’t think I would waste my time doing so. The same time required to pick apart an auther’s work could be spent on writing the piece myself, therefore bettering myself through practice. You do this enough you will not have the urge to cheat.
Malesic is correct in his findings; students who plagiarize are lazy, afraid or ignorant. As a teacher, he must come across several papers every semester that have some resemblance of plagiarism. In his earlier days he stated that he felt guilty, that it was perhaps his fault that the student had to cheat on a paper. Malesic says what makes him so angry is the fact that studenst would think he would notice it, “Do they think we are stupid…Do they know what the diplomas on our walls mean.” This sums up Malesic’s disgust of cheating. I believe he is fair in his assumptions; students who plagiarize are just cheating themselves.