centrality |
I think Centrality's group would
be more successful in implementing a change in the auditing procedure because
there appears to be more communication among this group. In addition, the secretary plays a key
role in the network, meaning everyone feels comfortable to talk to her. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
centrality |
I believe that Centrality's one
will succeed more in implementing a change because their advice circle had
many more relationships where everybody had talked to more than one person so
therefore a lesser change has to be made.
However, the Hierarchy team did not have a good networking system
because there is a lot of distance between the individuals and you have
everybody talking to Nancy and no one else.
More of a change will have to occur with the second group. |
|
centrality |
I think that Centrality's group
is more likely to succeed because I think people are more easily influenced
by advice rather than authority.
Centrality's group has a more evenly distributed advice network, so I
think that will help them succeed in the long run. |
|
centrality |
I think Centrality's team will
be more likely to implement a change because his team has a higher degree of
connectedness. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's team because more
lines of communication open between the different people in different
departments. |
|
centrality |
Centrality because they will
have to retrain less people than Hierarchy.
The power shift was changed a lot by Hierarchy, not as much as
Centrality's. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's auditing group
changed the power increase with more people and new people possibly creating
a good feedback from emplyees. There
is also a strong leader still in effect to oversee. It also however could blow up in his face, doing badly. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's because Hierarchy's
team seem to divide themselves up over two groups causing loyalties to more
various sides, while since Centrality's team seems to be more intertwined
within one another that change would likely be easier with more widespread
respect and leadership. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's group because it
did not seem as hierarchical. Also,
everyone had contact with one another.
It seems to me that Centrality's group would have an easier time because
it is more informal. It was not as
easy to designate a person to implement change the best for Hierarchy's
group. There needs to be more
equality and evenness like Centrality's group. |
|
centrality |
I think Centrality's group will
be more successful in implementing a change because there were more arrows
meaning that there was more communication and networking relationships. The hierarchy was broken down more in
Centrality's group. It shows to be
more efficient. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's group will be more
successful because he stayed at the top of the management, but so will
Hierarchy's group since Hierarchy greatly decreased, in my opinion there will
be more problems. In conclusion, Hierarchy's
group will most likely implement a change in the auditing procedure. |
|
centrality |
Centrality because there are
more links of communication and it is also more centralized. This group seems to share more with each
other. |
|
centrality |
I
think Centrality's group will be more successful due to the fact that
Centrality has more power than Hierarchy's group. Although it looks like Hierarchy has less people to convince
and could probably have an easier change. |
|
centrality |
I think Centrality's team will
most successfully implement a change in the auditing procedure. In his group the advice network grew
more. The people at the bottom have
access to valuable information. |
|
centrality |
I believe Centrality's group
will be more likely to successfully implement a change in the auditing
procedure because many more employees either increased or stayed the same in
the power change from authority relationship network to the advice relationship
network, when compared to Hierarchy's auditing teams. Centrality's auditing team seems to have
better communication throughout the group which I believe will make it easier
to implement a change. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's auditing team looks
to be more likely to successfully implement a change in the auditing process
due to the fact that less people in Centrality's group (vs Hierarchy's) lost
any power means that individuals have either maintained or increased their
status. Knowing this then it is easy
to assume that the workers will be more apt to change since they have a say
in it. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's team because there
are more central figures that the employees speak and interact with. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's
auditing team will more likely be successful implementing change because in
the advice relationship the employees tend to have more connections with each
other. |
|
centrality |
I think that Centrality's team
would be more successful implementing change because they have a stronger
advice relationship network, meaning that the role of people with less power
becomes stronger promoting change. |
|
centrality |
It seemed like Centrality's team
talked to more people and the people towards the bottom had more say and more
responsibilities than Hierarchy's thus Centrality's team could probably get
the job done better. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's team because more
people increased their network.
There were also more ties between everyone in that team. In Hierarchy's team more people actually
decreased their ties. |
|
centrality |
I think Centrality's group will
be more likely to successfully implement a change because it seems to me that
their informal advice structure involves more people giving and asking for
advice. The more you involve people
the bigger the range of ideas and better possibility for change. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's team will be more
successful because there are more informal connections in the group. Also, the pathways of information are
better linked through people. The middle
managers have good relationships with their manager, and their subordinates.
And among the subordinates, better ties exist. |
|
centrality |
I
think that the team of Centrality will be more likely to successfully
implement a change in the auditing procedure because they have more people
involved in both the authority relationship network and the advice
relationship network. The advice
network in Centrality's group had more range because there were a lot of
people who went to different people for advice. |
|
centrality |
Probably Centrality because he
did not lose so drastic a position as did Hierarchy in the formal advice
structure shift. And there seemed to
be more all around communications. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's auditing team would
likely be more successful. Within
Centrality's team the advice relationship network draws from all aspects of
team-it seems that everyone plays some kind of positive role. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's team may be more
successful because though both teams have the same formal network when it
comes to the informal Centrality's team has a lot more relationships. When many more people are communicating and
getting advice from each other these are better chances of implementing a
change. This is not to say that
Hierarchy's team will not be successful but the change may be a little more
difficult to go about because of the lack of many informal networks. |
|
centrality |
I think that Centrality's group
will likely be successful because there was more change in networks in
Centrality's example versus Hierarchy's. |
|
centrality |
I think Centrality's team will
be more successful because there wasn’t such a difference between the
authority (informal) structure and informal.
The same people or mostly the same people who were the bosses also had
the most people coming to them for advice; therefore the teams all had good
relationships witht their bosses. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's-decisions seems to
be more centralized. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's group because there
seems to be more communicating among people.
This will create trust and greater reliability in the job. People will no longer see the hierchical
structure but rather see their inputs to the organization as valuable. |
|
centrality |
I think that Centrality's team
will be more successful because the change from formal to informal graphs was
not as drastic as Hierarchy's. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's team will be more
successful in implementing a change because of its strong and weak ties. Centrality's team has more weak ties than
Hierarchy's team giving him a constant source of new information. Also, the leaders, or bosses, on the
formal networks for Centrality's team do not lose power as does some of the
leaders in Hierarchy's team. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's team because there
are a greater number of increase and power in his informal network. Keeping in mind that their formal networks
were identical. |
|
centrality |
The team that is more likely to
suceed in a change would be Centrality's because there are stronger
relationships in that network. |
|
centrality |
I would pick Centrality's team
because they seem to have a better advice relationship with the other
employees. |
|
centrality |
The
team most likely to successfully implement change in the auditing procedure
is Centrality's group because they have stronger informal relationships
within their specific group and some outside their group. This would help make change more likely to
occur and be successful. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's group seems more
likely to succeed as it has more internal networking within it. In times of need, they will be able to
count on one another. |
|
centrality |
Based on the information, I
believe Centrality's team will be more successful in change. There is more advice spread out in
Hierarchy's team to different members.
In Hierarchy's, everyone listens to one main person for advice. |
|
centrality |
I think Centrality's team
because both the teams are similar in
formal structure but Centrality's has an advantage on the informal
relationship because more people talk to each other and work closely for
change. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's group will be more
successful because his groups (as a whole) power did not decrease as much as
Hierarchy's. This group seems to talk
more between other groups in the organization. There are more opinions and creative ideas. |
|
centrality |
I feel that Centrality's team
will have greater success in implementing this change. It seemed that in Centrality's formal
organization there was greater change.
People were going to different people for advice. In Hierarchy's group almost the same
people were still the one's to go to for advice. Their role in the organization did not quite change a lot. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's team will be more
successful because it seems to be more stable in the management levels. In this team, the middle managers
authority stayed or seemed more consistent, whereas in Hierarchy's team, the authority
and communication shifted drastically to having the auditors and
administrator with the more power. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's group is more
likely to implement change because the workers are more closely linked. People talk to more of their co-workers
than in Hierarchy's group. More betweness
centrality exists among members of Centrality's group. Therefore, people are more likely to
maintain an open communication about the changes. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's
team. I feel this way because if
management went through Nancy and used her as an agent of change they would
be in a way affecting everyone in the organization. The relationships to Nancy are all based on some triangle. For example, if the informal relationships
look like this in Centrality's group, everyone seems to go to different
people for advice but those people then go to Nancy. Thus Nancy has a lot of power because what
she says trickles down into the organization. If you look at Hierarchy's team people go to different people
for advice but that's about it.
Those individuals don't then go to one person to get advice. Thus I feel, they wouldn't be as
successful in implementing change. |
|
centrality |
I
think that Centrality's team will be more likely to sucessfully implement a
change in the auditing procedure. The
reason being that in Centrality's group there are more people whose power has changed from formal authority network
to advice network. Consequently,
power and authority in the group/organization is being distributed among
group members. |
|
centrality |
I believe Centrality's group can
implement change successfully because their advice network seems to be more
linked together. Instead of a group
of people all going to one person who goes to another. They go in a triangle effect which I think
would spread information more quickly.
Also, in this case they can work with each other instead of just one
person calling all the shots. There
is also more people in powerful positions so there is not as many people
needing to be told what to do. |
|
centrality |
I think Centrality's team would
be more likely to successfully implement a change because it shows shows has
people who are lower in authority and formal power in reality hold much power
informally because many people come to them for advice, speak to them, or
report to them. It seems to me that
there is more of an organizational change from formal hierarchies to a more
flatten modle of power because there is more interaction between peopel of
lower power and those of higher power. |
|
centrality |
I believe Centrality's group
would be able to implement change most successfully because they all rely on
each other heavily. All the group
leaders are respected by their co-workers enough to ask them for advice so
they obviously respect their opinions.
When told about the change they would be more opt to do it oposed
Hierarchy's team because there is a great deal of interdependence. Hierarchy's team leaders were not trusted
as much as Centrality's team leaders were, which could hinder their ability
to adapt to change. |
|
centrality |
I believe that Centrality's team
will have a better chance at implementing change because everyone in his
group who has authoritive power will respond to Nancy. If both Nancy and Centrality agree in a
change, then they will remain smooth.
However, if Nancy disagrees with the change and with Centrality, the
we will have an opposite effect. Both
extremes are presented with Centrality, while the middle ground is with
Hierarchy. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's group will be more
likely to implement a change in the auditing procedure because most of the increase of change of
power occurred within the administrative group has the power to make changes
within the organization because it is their responsibility. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's team seems to have
more team members who have higher informal power. In this team the advice relationship network is spread out
among four key players. Furthermore,
I believe that Nancy has 9 people who report to her for advice. Nancy could be used as a successful tool
for implementing a change in the auditing process. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's team would have
less trouble and more success implementing change because power is not lost
within the scope of leadership as you optically view them through the windows
of both power and advice. They (mgrs)
retain the leadership respect from either viewpoint. Therefore, their organization would,
theorhetically, work better as a team with out the presence of conflict. Additionally, Centrality's team appears to
have less reluctancy going to the administrative staff where that does not
appear to be the case with Hierarchy's team.
Hierarchy's team does go to the admin staff but it appears to be more
involved throughout the entire team of managers team with Centrality's team. |
|
centrality |
I believe that Centrality's
auditing team will be more successful in implementing change because he has
more power. More people ask him out
for more advice. The turn to him when
they have problems and may also have greater trust in him as a leader and
mentor. |
|
centrality |
I believe that Centrality's
group is going to implement change in their auditing procedures. From my notes about the two groups, I
notices that more change would come from Centrality's group. There would be more people that would
increase power when changing from formal to informal. Therefore, because of this I believe
Centrality would be more likely to start a change to prevent this shift of
power. So in my opinion Centrality's
group would change before Hierarchy's. |
|
centrality |
I think Centrality's group would
be more likely to implement change successfully. It seems like the advice power is spread out more evenly.
Giving all agents chances to give and get advice. More people increased in power from formal to advice
relationships. Hierarchy's group only
had a few agents giving advice. A lot
of agents were only able to receive advice.
Being able to give advice allows oneself to engage in the activity
more and really understand whats going on.
Responsibility of that agent is dependent on the other agents. Centrality's group is more positively
involved with each other. |
|
centrality |
I feel that Centrality's team
could implement the auditing procedure correctly because the informal power
in the relationship is concentrated and hierarchical. If in Centrality's group we empower Nancy
to be a driving force in the change then the network is such that Nancy's
influence can be easily spread downwards.
In Hierarchy's group there doesn't seem to be that link that brings
all the teams together. Centrality's
group is more likely to successfully implement change in the auditing
procedure. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's because it seemed
that the transition from formal to informal gave people on the bottom of the
network hierarchy, a little more power.
These people will probably influence change the most because they have
gained a little more authority. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's team would be more
likely to implement a change successfully because they communicate more with
each other. The boss is not the only
one. Even the people who are not in
charge given advice and contribute to the company. This team seems more open to change because of that. They seem like they work together more and
do not just depend on one head boss. |
|
centrality |
I think Centrality's auditing
team would more successfully implement a change in auditing procedure. Both teams have the same kind of formal
network, but Centrality's group has more informal links. People are communicating, both giving and
receiving advice, in a greater quantity than Hierarchys auduting team. To implement change in any organization
there has to be a lot of communicating and trust. In addition, 3 of the formal network leaders, are also in power
in the informal network. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's group would be the
most successful in implementing a change.
His group is a lot closer to each other than Hierarchys group. Most of the people in Centrality's group
go to more than one person to ask for advice. Hierarchy's group would also be good because of the way they
are divided. A couple of key leaders
will cause less confusion since the same message will be sent directly. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's group appeared to
have more connections of people within sections as well as to other
sections. I have a feeling it is only
because it was the last graph I saw and because Centrality's was structured in
a more complex looking way. If not
they were very similar, but Centrality's looked slightly better. |
|
centrality |
Centrality's team would probably
implement change more succcessfully because they had the most dramatic and
detailed change. Their distribution
of power was very unique and innovative.
New people were given power which allows for new ideas and
perspectives. They also kept some of
the previous peopel which merges old and new. This allows for knowledge of the history of the company to
prevent mistakes and work through problems but still allows for new creative
advancement. |
|
centrality |
I think that Centrality's
auditing team will likely be most successful in implementing change in that
his team has people with more stable amount of power and can see both ways of
situations. |
|
centrality |
I believe Centrality's group
would be better capable of implementing a change in the auditing procedure
with greater/stronger leaders who receive information from nearly everyone in
the network they are able to better understand the problem that do or may
arise and also gather more feedback from others in order to better undestand
the views on the auditing procedure. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's group would be
because they are a closer group with more key players and not as scattered as
Centrality's. They would have a much easier time implementing change for
sure. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's team will be more
likely to successfully implement a change in the auditing precedure. The advice network is much more
"spread" making it appear as though information and input is
dispersed more efficiently. |
|
hierarchy |
I think Hierarchy's group is
more likely to successfully implement the change. The reason is because the advice relationship is more spread
out. Everyone goes to almost everyone
for advice so it seems they trust a lot more. |
|
hierarchy |
I think Hierarchy's group will
be likely to successfully implement a change because there is one person that
almost everybody relates to. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's team will be more
successful because his centrality is better than Centrality's. Therefore, he lost less power when
changing how the data was presented. |
|
hierarchy |
I think Hierarchy's auditing
team will be more successful because the advice relationship network still
involves the best players in power.
Whereas, in Centralitiy's he has very litte advice influence. |
|
hierarchy |
Depends on who top management is
able to convince key members to implement change. If, in Hierarchy's group, top management is able to convince
Nancy, then Hierarchy's team will be more likely to implement a change. This is because Nancy has influence over a
wider range. |
|
hierarchy |
I think Hierarchy's group will
be more likely to implement a change because in Hierarchy's advice
relationship network, everyone goes to Nancy, which will probably easier to
get a hold of her, because she knows everything, instead of having to find
different individuals who know a little about certain people, as is the case
in Centrality's group. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's because more people
improved their relationships between one another. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's auditing team will
be more successful because there is always an individual which is Nancy that
the team goes to for advice though Centrality's team is also good Hierarchy's
has a strong leader in place to aid and help the rest of the people. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's team seems like
they'd be more successful because Hierarchy plays a key tole in the two
different networks which is really important. In Centrality's team Centrality was not a powerful person in
the advice network so it seems as though his team has less trust in his
opinions. |
|
hierarchy |
I think Hierarchy's team will be
more successful because they have a greater amount of informal working ties,
compared to the other team. Hierarchy
also plays a more active role than Centrality making his influence on others
more meaningful. |
|
hierarchy |
I believe Hierarchy's group will
be more likely to succeed because based on both formal and informal networks,
he is more involved than Centrality.
And because he is at the top in the formal situation and just as involved
in the informal structure. |
|
hierarchy |
Probably Hierarchy's group
because it seems as though his group's supervisors have closer relationships
to each other. |
|
hierarchy |
I feel Hierarchy's auditing team
will be more successful. The reason
is that most people either stayed the same or increased in
relationships. Nancy is a secretary
and does have relationships with all the leader. So I feel Hierarchy's team. |
|
hierarchy |
I think that Hierarchy's group
would definitely be more successful in implementing some changes. Hierarchy's group has many different
authority figures but there is still one central figure to oversee
everything. There is an excellent
flow of input in Hierarchy's group so that by the time ideas are finalized
they should be perfect. |
|
hierarchy |
I
think Hierarchy's group will be better at implementing a change because it
seems like they focus on their key agents more than Centrality's group. When they focus on their key agents then
everybody seems to agree that those people will successfully implement a
change. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's team would have an
easier time. Their authority and
advice relationships are very close.
Hierarchy, Stuart, and Donna all appear to be in the top 4 for both. Hierarchy as the group leader has apparent
authority as well as the trust of the middle managers. Nancy is very involved in the group as
well which would make a transition much easier. Power and trust are evenly spread throughout the group. |
|
hierarchy |
Based on what I have learned and
observed, I feel that I would need more information to make a decision like
this--> I am indecisive. If I was
forced to make a decision however I would choose Hierarchy's group because
they seem more closely networked than Centrality's group. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's group because the
top management levels have more power informally in the company than
Centrality's group. Centrality's
group had a few managers who lose very much in informal group. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's auditing team will
be more likely to successfully implement a change in the auditing
procedure. In Hierarchy's team there
are only 3 people who his/her power stays the same from the formal authority
network to the advice network. On the
other hand, there are 6 people who his/her stay the same in Centrality's
team. In Hierarchy's team, they could
gather more informations from several different people in the group. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's. His informal network is a lot less
complicated than Centrality's.
Therefore it will be much easier to implement change in Hierarchy's
than Centrality's. Centrality's
network has too many people asking each other questions. |
|
hierarchy |
I think Hierarchy's team will do
a better job because the range and power that each person has does change but
it doesn’t change too much so that nobody could handle it. Each person in Hierarchy's group is given
more power to change something which will be more effective than only a few
people powerful enough to create change. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's group would be more
successful in implementing a change because the informal relationship is
stronger. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's team because the 2
out of 3 people under Hierarchy also have good relationships with the bottom
level employees. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's group because there
appears to be more communication among employees. |
|
hierarchy |
I
think Hierarchy's auditing team will be more successful because his structure
is more of a learning organization with really everybody going to everybody
else for answers. A lot of the people
had enough power to go straight through to Nancy or go to other directors for
answers. People will participate more
and be more involved for their company with this structure. |
|
hierarchy |
I think Hierarchy's team will be
more likely to successfully implement a change in the auditing procedure
because the power is more evenly distributed. There is more participation among all the participants. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's auditing team will
be more likely to successfully implement a change in the auditing procedure
because the team is more balanced and better distributed. |
|
hierarchy |
Based on all the information
given, I think Heriarchy's team will be more likely to successfully implement
a change in the auditing procedure because the authority is more distributed
than in Centrality's team. |
|
hierarchy |
I think Hierarchy's group would
be the most likely to successfully implement a change in auditing procedure,
simply because all information comes from Nancy in some route or
another. In Centrality's group
information comes from all over, making it difficult to share the
message. In Hierarchy's group,
everyone will follow Nancy, so as long as we convince her, we'll suceed. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's group because they
get down to the lowet management more effectively by going through Nancy. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's group would be more
likely to successfully implement change because Nancy is the person more of
the higher ranked authorities go to.
Since she is in the auditors group, she can promote change. She directly deals with the head of the
department, too. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's team because more
people would be involved. It would me
a more informal relationship, more people working together. |
|
hierarchy |
I think Hierarchy's group. Their informal structure was very mixed
and connected. In one way or another,
they are all interacting with one another in Hierarchy's group. Their informal structure allows their
ideas and thought to be showed and passed around more freely. |
|
hierarchy |
I think Hierarchy's team will be
more successful because when the roles became informed most of the group
increased in power. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's auditing team will
be more likely to successfully implement a change in the auditing procedure
because the team members either stayed the same or increased slightly with
power. It is easier than increasing
or decreasing power greatly. |
|
hierarchy |
Overall
I think Hierarchy's group would be more successful in implementing a change
in the auditing procedure. Mainly due
to the fact that Hierarchy's group had more people whom had better
relationships or more relationships in the informal organization. Generally, the people in both teams
remained the same for formal/informal organization but thre were more people
changing for the better when it came to informal networks for Hierarchy's
group. therefore people should get
along better, happier, and work better/more productive. because people know about their concerns
and therefore know what they want or need. |
|
hierarchy |
I think Hierarchy's group would
be more successful because everyone seems to have some input in
decision-making. I feel when a
manager can stoop below someone with less authority, the employee will feel
more inclined to be more productive and efficient. anytime an upper mangement person goes to a lower authority
employee. |
|
hierarchy |
I think that Hierarchy's team
will be more successful because they had the most people improve their power
from the formal structure to the informal structure. Centrality's group had more people that
stayed the same from the formal to the informal, giving them a disadvantage
over Hierarchy's group for change. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's team would implement
change easier than Centrality's team.
Hierarchys team is much simpler in its connections and many people
would not be getting the same information from different people. Due to the simplicity of Hierarchy's team,
change would occur at a much faster rate.
As we know the goal is for faster and more efficient and Hierarchy's
team is much more equipped to implement any of the changes they need for
success. |
|
hierarchy |
I think Hierarchy's team would
be better able to implement change because their informal advice structure is
simpler and more spread out. In
Centrality's team they have a lot of people going to claire for advice which
may cause her to be overwhelmed. In
Hierarchy's team the advice links are more spread out. Nancy does give out a lot of advice but
also receives help. Where Nancy from
Centralitys team does not.
Hierarchy's team can succeed because everybody is working together in
a more efficient manner. |
|
hierarchy |
The team that will change more
successfully in Hierarchy's group because people's power from formal to
informal stay the same or increase.
Centrality's group changes more drastically because more peope lose
power and there should only be people with some power to help an organization
run smoothly. There will be more
efficiency in Hierarchy's group in formal and informal. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's team! Hierarchy's team does not have so many
increase and decreases in power as much as Centrality's team. Therefore, it would most likely be
Hierarchy's team. They mostly have to
do a couple of minor adjustments in the sense of promotion and little bit in
the opposite direction. |
|
hierarchy |
Probably
Hierarchy's team. It just seems like
they have a more balance of power from informal and formal changes, making
change to the procedures easier.
Where there is a more spread out balance it is much easier for people
to work together through the obstacles they will face because of the
implement of changes. People have to
feel comfortable with more than just one or two people and Centrality's team
when informal seems to have less people receiving people who need advice from
them. The more balance in a team the
more power they have to be successful in going through change together. |
|
hierarchy |
In Hierarchy's group I think
Donna that group more likely to successfully implement a change in the
auditing procedure because all her group people have more connection to each
other. It is not one on one people to
deal anything. |
|
hierarchy |
I think Hierarchy's team will be
more successful because there is a difference between who has formal and
informal power. By having 2 people
with power from the secretarial side there will be a greater push to finish
and finalize all paperwork. Thus,
making sure the auditing process is complete and paperwork is done on time. |
|
hierarchy |
I believe Hierarchy has the most
potential among the teams because they have the most interconnections among
the other groups. Meaning, they would
have the most information to work with and therefore can make changes. |
|
hierarchy |
I think that Hierarchy's
auditing team will; be more likely to successfully implement a change in the
auditing procedure because based in the two networks, Hierarchy's network
seems to have stronger connections to produce change. The people in Hierarchy's team seem to
have more power to influence change than the people in Centrality's team. |
|
hierarchy |
Hierarchy's group would
implement change most successfully because they use each other for
information. Opposed to bombarding
one person. They also seem to all
communicate with each other as opposed to sticking to a particular group,
each department may be well informed of the other simply because of their
communication. |
|
missing |
Neither. The groups are equally as strong, the
diagrams and social relationships are drawn and represented differently, but
just the names are changed. Each
person in each network corresponds with the other, both in Centrality and
Hierarchy's group. |
|
missing |
I think the secretarial team
pool would be the most successful in implementing a change because in both
auditing teams everyone who had the highest power in the authority
relationship network later, all got or has to go to a person in the
secretarial pool for advice. Nancy in
Hierarchy's team. |
|
missing |
In my opinion, both teams seem
as if they will both be successful.
Both teams share the fact that they have roughly the same people in
both networks. However, they each
have their own strategy to go about making these changes. Each way seems to accomplish their goal. |
|
missing |
I believe that all the teams are
equal in the ways to audit the graphs might be drawn. Because on a circle are equidistant from
the center. |
|
missing |
Depending on the situation. |
|
missing |
They both seem about the
same. I didn’t detect a difference. |
|
missing |
They are the same changes so
will have the same results. |
|
missing |
I think they will have equal
success in implementing changes. They
both have the lower levels handle the main ground work thay eventually goes
into the decision making processes.
The system that needs changes should start with that of those who are
most involved. |
|
missing |
The supervisor group will be in
its majorority the more successful team to influence change, not the
president and neither the lower group of workers (with exception of a few
employees who might be apparently really capable and liked because all kinds
of people seem to be getting their advice--they are probably leaders in the
company) |
|
missing |
They all come from the same
roots. |
|
missing |
I
think that both teams have the same propensity to successfully change. This is because the formal and informal
structures are very much alike. The
formal structures are identical and the informal structures have the same
basic changes. The head of the
department moves down the ladder while most of the bottom level move up, some
more than others. But the changes
seemed to be equal in that the same amount of people moved up slightly and
greatly on both departments. |
|
missing |
I think it would be about
even. Both formal and informal
structures look about the same to me.
In both cases, some people lost power and some people gained power. I can not say which group would do better. |
|
missing |
They will be equally successful
because they have identical strengths in their authority and advice networks. |
|
missing |
N/A |
|
missing |
They both appear to have equal
chance of success because they have extremely similar formal and informal
structures to each other. |
|
missing |
They are both almost exactly
alike. I don’t understand how or who can be
successful. Both have a very similar
hierarchy and relationship system. |
|
missing |
Neither
will more sucessful from what structures have been shown because in both
cases middle management seems to have the most power maintained in both
structures. To choose Centrality's or
Hierarchy's auditing teams without looking at how productive the company is
would be choosing one over the other blindly. |
|
missing |
I believe that the formal will
be more likely to successfully implement a change in the auditing
procedure. The reason why is because
the managers are more aware of the procedure and they still have the informal
advice relationship. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|