GREASY MANAGEMENT!!!!

From classmates I’d heard that their orders were met with disgust and confusion, but that eventually the manager gets involved and expedites the process. I figured the same would hold true for me. However, in Valley Stream I was met with disdain, attitude and hostility. The cashiers looked at me like I was crazy and the manager thought I was playing a joke and told me to leave. Regardless of their reasons for this behavior, I was very shocked. Isn't the customer always right? I decided to try my luck with the McDonalds in Union Square. Shockingly, the cashier was nonchalant about the order and passed it to the manager. The manager followed the process, ensuring his employee put 4 pickles and the fries were well done with no salt. The fluidity of the process impressed me until the manager asked what class this was for. Clearly these were not genuine reactions; However, despite their familiarity with the process, my receipt was incorrectly printed. I decided that my third effort needed a slight spin to ensure genuine responses. The idea was to isolate the Manager from the process so that he was incapable of directing; In doing so, I could easily see how chaotic the process would become. To do this I enlisted Jen Parker. We went to the McDonalds on 7th Ave and 14th St. There was a line forming behind us and the employees were rushing to complete the orders. Jen went first and submitted her order. As expected, similar to the reaction at Union Square, the cashier took the order and called for the manager. The manager spoke to Jen and the constructed the hamburger with 4 pickles, and hand-picking well done no salt Fries. While the manager was preoccupied with Jen’s order, I submitted mine. The cashier began to put in my order, and stopped. She didn’t know how to proceed without the manager. She called out, “can someone help?” No one responded. For a few seconds she stood looking for someone who was not hard at work. She couldn’t find anyone, and continued completing my order and put it onto the order screen for the employees in the back. Afterwards she flashed me a dirty look. A minute or two later the manager came back with Jen’s order and the cashier told him about mine. He walked into the back to see what was happening. I saw him take the bun off of my hamburger and throw two more pickles on it. He waited until a fresh batch of Fries was made, and he picked out mine before they were salted. Without the manager my order would’ve been incorrect and I may not have received my Fries. Jen’s order took 5 mins, and mine took 8 mins. That is a 60% increase in time for an identical order. 4 people were involved in my order: The cashier, the person who made my hamburger, the person who made my Fries and the manager. I believe that the McDonald’s staff was well prepared for a “surprise” order. They had an obvious strategy, which was to direct it to the manager and allow him to supervise the order. However, he’s out of the equation, there was no set strategy. Personally, I think the fault with the process lies with the fact that the employees who construct the hamburger can not easily be told to add 4 pickles instead of 2. Clearly adding 2 more pickles is not a task that should require a manager’s attention. Perhaps McDonalds should invest in a more descriptive computer system that transfers information from the cashiers to the employees making the food. Another option would be to continually keep a certain amount of Fries unsalted, and to have the employee salt them if it is necessary. Another issue that I would definitely deal with was the management hierarchy. It was very clear that the manager was first in control, but after him the cashier didn’t know who was next. She did not know who else to call for. Perhaps it would be prudent to set up an assistant manager if the manager is busy.

D.I.S.C.over yourself !!!

At first I thought that the diagnostic was only half right; it named me as being primarily conscientious and secondary steady. I agreed entirely with the steady aspect, but I heartily disagreed with the conscientious. After consulting with my friends and getting their opinions, it was fairly apparent that they thought the test had described me extremely accurate. But I personally did not know if I believed the results. After thinking about it, I realized that I was having a hard time believing the results because I did not like being called conscientious. In the face of dominance, influence and conscientious, I would much rather have been influential, and then dominating before conscientious. I suppose that developed from the fact that my entire family is very strong willed and either falls into the dominating category or extremely influential category; I have learned from them, their behavior, and interactions with them that one must be outwards, and push, and very forceful from time to time to get their way; This applies especially to me when I believe that more often than not I have the best ideas in my family, but other individuals might be more apt to argue and fight to get their way. I have learned from experience that after a brief confrontation I am very likely to give up my stance and avoid hurting someone else's feelings, despite how strongly I feel. This is about where I decided that the test was completely right and that I just flat out wasn't entirely happy with that fact. But in retrospect, did I have good reason to believe that my profile was the profile of someone who was invaluable to a company? The answer is no, I did not have reason to look upon my future with doubt. As I have just mentioned, my family is quite strong-willed. Even though it is not necessarily the strongest characteristic in my nature to be strong-willed and "force" my ideas through, I have learned over time how to do it. This can be very valuable when I am completely sure that I am right and that the other person is making a grave mistake. Also, when Professor K began to explain the strengths and weaknesses of each class, I realized that for my intended profession, which lies within the financial world, prudence, accuracy, and consideration are very valuable assets. These characteristics unfortunately do not provide me with an edge to make the big, blockbuster securities-trade or IPO, but they do position me well to avoid undertaking extremely risky positions and losing clients' money. I play poker in the same manner, very sure handed and calculated, and I am lucky enough to have won more often than I lose. Another aspect that I was happy to hear about my characteristics is that I was someone who can be trusted in almost any capacity. Not only do I consider myself to be trustworthy, but I consider myself to be a Jack of all trades; Or at least I am attempting to develop myself into the caricature while in college. Personally I think that I would put a substantial amount of stock in this personality profile test, but I would not trust it completely. People change over time, and although I am a CS now, I can develop into a DI after a few more years with my family. The value of this test lies in the fact that we all bring different inherent attributes to the table and that as managers we must realize that the same approach and personality is not best for every situation. Rather we must change our approach to better accommodate situations, or if we can not change our approach, we must find someone whose personality type is ideal for the moment at hand. I believe this was very apparent in the Stranded scenario. In this scenario, two details, which are fairly minor, influence which type of managing personality would perform best. The issues are 1) The limitation on time that they have. 2) The amount of information that is readily available regarding the situation. For instance, if their was a time constraint of a few hours left to live, then their really is no time to sit and discuss; I would rather be with the dominating personality then because most likely he or she would be able to incite action in the survivors and would be able to quickly coordinate them. This would be far better than wasting time analyzing the situation. However, if their was a large amount of time, it might be best if a conscientious or steady decision maker was in charge, because he or she would probably encourage the group to come to the most logical and efficient way at achieving survival, whether that is staying still or attempting to find help. The influential class would midway between both of the aforementioned extremes, and would help in either case, although I think that in either case he or she would be too ineffective. The second constraint, the amount of readily available information is also an influencer of who should be in charge. For instance, if someone knows survival information, or has a gps satellite, there is very little if any need for discussion and planning. In that case the answer is essential deterministic rather than probabilistic, and a dominating or influential personality would be better suited to develop results at a faster pace. In there is very little information known, then a plan is needed to determine what is most likely occurring and how to best deal with the situation. In this case, a steady personality would be best, while a conscientious personality would be helpful. Although, I must admit that I think that a too conscientious person might waste too much time in giving everyone a say in what is and is not an option for survival. The steady personality would be better because the analysis would quickly weed out those options and suggestions which clearly do not provide substantial value to the group. But remember, these are just my ideas pertaining to the stranded! discussion. In any discussion or situation, who would be the best leader is very dependant on the parameters of that discussion; For instance, who makes the best teachers is very dependant on the area of the world you are in; In high power societies such as China or India, dominating teachers or influential teachers are preferred. However in low power societies such as America or South America, conscientious teachers or steady teachers are most likely preferred.