Answer:
b. Organizational justice.
Explanation:
In reacting to the allegations that Google engages in "systematic compensation disparities against women" and the request of payroll records by the U.S. Department of Labor in 2017.
Google annually reviews pay levels and denies any disparities against women. In reviewing pay levels, Google's management is focused on organizational justice. The concept of organizational justice was first introduced by Greenberg in the year 1987.
Organizational justice is an organizational concept that describes an employee's perception of decisions, fairness, behaviors and actions with respect to how these employees are affected or influenced both psychologically and other wise at work.
Organisational justice deals with all workplace related activities, ranging from salary to relationships between superiors and their subordinates, equal rights, gender equality and even access to training and promotion.
For the purpose of trust, loyalty and progressive work attitudes, it is very important that organizations prioritize organizational justice.
Hence, if Google focuses on organizational justice, it will help to build trust and address the issue of pay level disparities among its employees.
Answer:
False.
Explanation:
The concept of "Nash equilibrium" is been by economist and also by "gamers" in game theory. Nash equilibrium is so good for making decisions and the determination of strategies.
In playing this game, the players or participants can use the pure strategy or the mixed strategy. The mixed strategy is the use of different strategies randomly.
"If a player chooses a mixed strategy in a Nash equilibrium, this implies that the payoff from using that mixed strategy is the same as the payoff from using any of the pure strategies in it".
The statement given above is FALSE because the PAYOFF WILL INCREASE IF WE ARE TO PLAY A MIXED STRATEGY.
For instance if we have a head of 1 and -1, and a tail of -1 and 1, the payoff for pure strategy is likely one or minus one but for a mixed strategy it could be zero.
Answer:
The answer is: 4) More frequently than not, the three objectives are compatible.
Explanation:
Toyota is famous for its Just in Time (JIT) management. They are the absolute kings of efficient supply chain management and they were able to do it by making the three objectives compatible. That doesn't mean that they all have to be dealt with at the same time and with the same intensity.
Toyota's first goal was to reduce costs and in order to reduce costs they had to increase their inventory turnover. Then they discovered that in order to keep increasing inventory turnover, they had to compress their cycle time. When they were able to compress their cycle time, their turnover increased even more and their costs were lowered. The system produces continuous feedback and their efficiency keeps increasing.
I once visited one of their factories that produces almost 500 pickup trucks per day and every single work station had available inventory for only 4 trucks; only 4 engines, 16 doors, etc. It is amazing how they do it considering that every 3 minutes one truck is fully produced.
The three objectives are not only compatible, but they are absolutely necessary for the SCM to be effective.
