Sunni-Shia Split Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Sunni-Shia Split - Essay Example The U.S. should have supported the Shia Islam more than the Sunni Islam. This is because Sunni Arabs were more associated with Muslim extremists and the Al-Qa’Ida who considered outside powers as enemies and promoted values that were no in tune with world peace5. Al-Qa’Ida promotes monotheism and is against anyone who believes in polytheism6. It declares war on any individual who does not follow the Muslim religion. AQI viewed Shia as individuals who have rejected Islam and declared war on them7. Therefore, it is evident that Al-Qa’Ida should be stopped as they are against individualism and freedom. The U.S should lend help to individuals who are intent on driving AQI out as seen in the case of Amariyah whose new boss rebelled against AQI8. The Baath party was favored the Sunnis and ensured they took up positions of wealth and power9. The Shia Arabs are seen to be oppressed from several angles and would be the ones who would call for help as they do not promote values going against human right and freedom. The reign of Baath party saw that that the Shia did not enjoy higher living standards, prestigious education and jobs as the Sunni10. Sly, L. (2007). New Boss Turns the Tables on Al Qaeda Ex-Sunni Insurgent becomes U.S. Ally. Chicago Tribune, 22nd November 2007. Retrived Online

Careers Learning and Development in Katz, Sapper and Miller Company Case Study

Careers Learning and Development in Katz, Sapper and Miller Company - Case Study Example The core values include lifetime relations, integrity, responsiveness, quality, employee success, and entrepreneurship. Through the company’s business strategy that â€Å"Don’t just have clients; have partnered for life† it is clear that the company works towards establishing a long life relationship with its partners. Inherently, Katz, Sapper & Miller offers a full range of tax compliance together with planning services which mainly targets private and public companies, individuals, non-profit organizations and estates. Moreover, the company also is involved in evaluating business along with control risks for its clients. This includes audits and review of financial statements, compliance audit. Similarly, Katz, Sapper & Miller assist its client in target identification and post-deal integration which includes advisory accounting and reporting, valuations, transfer pricing and due diligence (Maurer 8). Katz, Sapper & Miller is not only known for its technical competence along with a good depth of knowledge that provides an extra edge that makes their clients more successful, but also its professionalism and community service. In order to ensure strict employee compliance with federal and state regulation and the company’s high ethical standards, KSM accountants attend professional education classes. Actually, the employees attend the professional classes throughout the year (Maurer 6). One of the ways David Resnick has employed in order to resolve differences of opinion that surface between clients and company consultants is through numerous advice to the clients. Mainly, KSM considers the abilities and passion of new college recruits before taking them. Mostly the new recruits are first taken through an internship program before confirmed as new employees. Moreover, the academic qualifications include 3.40 overall GPA and undergraduate or masters in accounting (Katz Sapper & Miller 4). Such candidates should possess written and oral communication skills, together with a desire to pursue the public accounting career.

Marketing Essays E-Business Marketing

Marketing Essays E-Business Marketing E-Business Marketing E-business marketing is the conduction of transaction (commercial) by using the telecommunication systems. The widespread use of the internet has increased the competency of the companies to conduct their business more accurately at a high speed and with huge coverage at a minimized cost. Apart from this, it has helped in providing customized services to the target market. As a result, innumerable companies have created web sites in order to provide information and promote their services and products. E-business plays an important role in building their sales by getting an access over the people across the world (Kotler, 2002). E-marketing strategy In order to formulate an effective E-marketing strategy, it should be aligned fully with the organization’s overall business objectives. The main purpose of an e-Marketing Strategy is to generate a long term competitive advantage and focus on enhancing the performance by capitalizing on resources of enterprise and technology. Building of effective strategy requires thorough research, intense planning, experience, analysis, and deep information about the online industry. The Strategy for e-Marketing is based on the principle of offline marketing i.e. 4 Ps: Product – Price – Promotion –place, and Added 3 Ps like People – Processes – physical evidence. The uniqueness in e-Marketing lies due to its seven main features such as: Personalization, confidentiality, better Service to the Customer, Community, digital media, Sales Promotion and Security (Krishnamurthy Singh, 2005). 1. Personalization: It means identifying and recognizing the needs of the customer in accordance with trends in the market. 2. Privacy or confidentiality: in e-Marketing, this indicates that the gathered information is safe and is used in apt manner from collection to the storage of data. Privacy plays a significant role as many legal aspects are associated with the use of such information. 3. Better Customer Service: e-Marketing focuses on building the relational viewpoint and in this transactional system; Customer Service plays an important role. 4. Community: as the number of members increases, it leads to the formation of the community. Therefore, developing the community is the key role to be played in the e-marketing 5. Site or digital media: It is the location where the interaction takes place. The digital technology helps in making it accessible at any moment and place. 6. Security: as the transaction begins on the internet channels, security function plays a vital role. The security system should prevent the unauthorized access of a third party over the transaction. Therefore, it is important for the e-marketing business to develop confidence in the customers regarding the safety of the transactions. 7. Sales Promotion: in building the e-marketing, sales promotion plays a vital role, as it helps in achieving sales growth in terms of volume. Here the marketer is supposed to apply his innovation. And he is also required to use the advanced internet technologies and promotional plan (Krishnamurthy Singh, 2005). Marketing tool and technique If identified properly, marketing tools help in guarantying long term success for the organization. Review of the right target audience must be done at the initial stage. For B2C, the end user forms target audience. Therefore, proper attention must be given to identify the needs of end user. On the other hand, for B2B, the customer serves as the distributor and as a result, the marketing of this business becomes quite difficult. In B2C and B2B, customer identification and creative internet site that can attract the right customers are essential. B2C: Business-to-Consumer websites are the mediator portal between the consumers and the suppliers. They help the businesses in connecting with their customers and in keeping their loyalty. Some of the major portals of B2C website are eBay (an auction site), ZDNet (a technology market place) and Yell (an internet version of yellow pages) that exists on the internet. The eight common features of business-to-consumer website are Sophisticated session control User log-in Shopping Basket system Anywhere, anytime information More convenient and faster shopping Privacy and Security of customer information Internet Company with marketing focuses on meeting the direct needs of end customer. The internet site fulfills the needs of customer and make successful sale. The web site finds numerous ways to attract the attention of the customer. For example: Amazon.com and Dell Inc. provide very good examples of a B2C intelligent e-business success story. The benefits provided to the customers by Dell Inc. include: access to the information anywhere at anytime and a proper co-ordination and communication. It also provides its customers with the benefit of self-help service and support. It provides the opportunity of forming a partnership with a leading e-commerce player along with detailed information about the products, solutions and services (Cao, Zhang Seydel 2005). B2B: In this, the business provides several products and through the receiving business, it meets the need of the end customer. The approach followed in this business is customer-based marketing. Therefore, they focus in designing the products and services according to the demands of the customers. Initially, they market their products to the distributors and develop way for entering the market in selected products and also create the sales environment for the products so that it can easily meet the needs of the target customers. By making the use of the B2B, the portal of the company can forward the incoming business to specific pages so as to have improved order techniques, inventory control and customer needs for example: e STEEL. Therefore, the marketing tool plays a vital role in the B2B and B2C (Ramaswamy Namakumari, 2007). Difference between the B2C website and B2B website Different strategies are used in the business-to-business environment. It uses routes like: advertisement in the form of pop up, e-mail and banner advertising in business. B2B and B2C can be differentiated on the basis of the following points: Objective: E-mail in B2B business is concerned with the production of lead; on the other hand in B2C, it refers to the transaction of the sale. In B2C, after consumer reach to the landing page, the next step is the evolution to the shopping cart and checkout page, where as in the B2B, e-mail marketing campaign itself acts as a source of marketing. Permission: In B2B transaction, permission involves a guarantee that the shared information will be kept confidential and as a result, the lead will be generated in more numbers where as in B2C, dealings demand receiving permit in a dissimilar way. Here an enterprise will insure the customers that they have the power to cop out of farther e-mails (Weil, 2002). Challenge in Copyrighting: In B2B, an e-mail must have the eye catching phrase on the subject of e-mail. Where as, in B2C the WIIFM acts as an important factor. The customers need to know that there is something relevant for them. B2C transactions are easy to maintain as compared to the B2B (Weil, 2002). Conclusion Broad use of internet has led to the development of B2C and B2B. In these businesses, deep understanding of the customer is required. The use of latest technology and the proper understanding will allow huge success. Both these e- businesses have provided the customers with the convenient options. A customer can easily gain the information of the product online and can also close the sale online. In order to make e-business successful, proper E-marketing strategy should be formulated and implemented and according to the target market, the marketing tools should be used. References Cao, M., Zhang, Q Seydel, J. (2005). B2C e-commerce web site quality: an empirical examination. Industrial Management Data Systems 105(5): 645-661 Kotler, P. (2002). Marketing Management (11th Edition). New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Private Ltd. Krishnamurthy, S. Singh, N. (2005).The international e-marketing framework (IEMF): Identifying the building blocks for future global e-marketing research. International Marketing Review 22(60): 605-610 Ramaswamy, V.S. Namakumari, S. (2007). Marketing Management (3rd Revised Edition). New Delhi: Macmillan India Ltd. Weil, D. (2002). B2B versus B2C Email Marketing: Five Differentiators. Retrieved May 21, 2008 from http://www.clickz.com/experts/em_mkt/b2b_em_mkt/article.php/994371

Legalize Pot :: essays research papers

The Decriminalization of Cannabis   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Cannabis Sativa, the illegal strain of hemp known as marijuana, provides numerous benefits that greatly outweigh the harmful effects of the drug. The perceivable physical and social problems of excessive use of marijuana are severe, yet unproven. These problems are easily related to those posed by excessive alcohol consumption on a regular basis. There are a variety of advantages of the legalization of marijuana that can be categorized as medical, social, and economical improvements. Although the harmful side effects such as brain damage caused by the use of marijuana have not been proven, as the only government licensed testing for this effect was unmercifully biased, the advantages of the drug in a medical context have been repeatedly proven. Marijuana is known to slow the influences of diseases including AIDS, glaucoma, epilepsy, certain forms of cancer, and many more fatal and incurable ailments. Currently, approximately 150,000 citizens of Ontario alone suffer from diseases that marijuana would help to lessen, but due to the stringency of federal and provincial laws only 50 of these people are granted exemption. The war on drugs endangers us all. Police react towards the age groups who are commonly rumoured to use these drugs severely. The sad fact is that crime is induced by the actions of law officials. People are forced to very dangerously smuggle marijuana in and out of the country. Sales of the drug have seeped into every tiny crevice of our communities. This could be stopped almost instantly with the licensing of sales in stores and specialized cafà ©s. Also, it is rumoured that marijuana is a gateway drug to harder, more dangerous substances like cocaine and heroin. The reasoning behind this is that a large portion of hard drug users smoked marijuana before advancing to harder drugs. The flaw in this reasoning is that the majority of marijuana users have never before used hard drugs. The nation's economy would undoubtedly be one of the largest beneficiaries of the legalization of marijuana. By adding steep tariffs on import, export, and sales of marijuana, Canada’s revenue would be increased greatly, adding money that could go towards lowering taxes, lowering the national debt, and increasing healthcare and national security. The prices of marijuana, despite the high taxes, would be significantly lowered due to the decrease of danger from prosecution. The current street prices of marijuana range from $150 to $250 per ounce of low-grade bud.

Early Warning Systems Essay

There is a connection between delivery of service, employee training and the employees’ behavior. The research paper undertakes to find out the early warning systems used by low enforcement agencies to identify a problem police officer and to reduce citizen complains. This is a crucial research question for all law enforcement agencies and members of the public especially those in proximity to law enforcers. Background of the Research. Most law enforcement agencies do not take the public complains as an indication of needs to identify a problem police officer among them.. It may a source for need to change tact of doing things, change method or systems of identifying problem officers in the force. Early indicators for a problem officer vary from one force to another depending the nature of their work. Reporting to duty has become one of single most important indicator of a problem police officer in law enforcement agencies today. Other systems have been proposed and are in use in various agencies in various countries. If you look at our people today the majority of them have no confidence in law enforcers not because of any peculiar reasons but due to the ignoring the problem officers of the enforcers. In world today, the government has introduced a governing paper as relates to systems of identifying of problem officers. Statement of the Problem I chose to work on this question because it directly affects the performance of duties by police officers, reduces public confidence of law enforcers as well law enforcers’ confident public relations, performance and their future ambitions and targets. If a law enforcer is not performing his duties very well and his colleagues note that they may be demotivated to perform their duties while other will absent themselves from their places of work, others will get excuses of not coming to work. Therefore police officers are required to constructively work as per the required as per the rules and regulations.. This will set good goals that he is going to achieve in his lifetime. When there are early warning systems implemented it will be easier for the police officers’ to improve their performance and the level of service to the public will be highly improved. The performance level of a law enforcer can be perfect if he/she engages in on regular professional development. There is a relationship between an officer’s performance level and implemented problem identification is correlated . When an officer knows that there are systems that will identify problems among themselves they will work hard and improve their performance as well as learn new things, new concepts, gets challenges, encounters obstacles, learns how to solve his own problems, learns to be independent and all this challenges will enable the performance improve. Though these challenges an officer will be competent and learn more on his own. Objectives of the Research The answers to this question will enhance my professional knowledge and competence in many ways. As a professional I will learn early identification systems implemented by other law enforcers in identifying problem police officer and ensuring that problems are solve before they get out of hand.. I will use what I have learned from this research to advise my enforcement agency on ways to identify a problem police officer and how to go around solving the problem. I will encourage my colleagues to learn, be creative, hardworking, independent and know how to solve problems on there own without superiors interference. The answers to this question also will assist me as a professional by motivating me to ensure that my performance and that of subordinates is improved. I will be regularly counterchecking whether the subordinates have performed their duties properly, perfectly and to the required standards. If officers have not done their duties properly they will be given close check to determine problem solving techniques to use in each case. Literature Review Act Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism states that the morality of an incident is determined by its outcome. The consequence is the main element here and it should lead to ultimate pleasure according to the theory. Thus this theory depicts that the morally correct action is that whose consequence creates ultimate happiness. Act Utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory of ethics which depicts that morally right action is that which is able to produce greatest amount of happiness to greatest number of people through its consequences. This theory does not connect to general rule; instead it demands evaluation of the circumstances by the agent (Act Utilitarianism nod. ). The objection to this theory states that it is too much permissive and can justify any crime if presented with valuable consequences. Another objection is that the theory has less practical use than its theoretical depiction as most of the time we do not get enough time to predict consequences and assess the values of them. In the case given the dilemma of using deception can be resolved absolutely if thought according to Act Utilitarianism Theory. This theory says that morality of an action is determined by its consequences. In the current scenario the consequence of the child being safe can surely determine the morality of using deception. But if it is found that Sylvester is not guilty then the consequences will not be able to justify the act of using deception. Rule Utilitarianism: It is also known as Restricted or Indirect Utilitarianism. This theory deals with the correctness of the rules. It states that moral actions are that which conform to the rules leading to greatest good. The correctness of the rule is determined by the amount of good it could generate. Another variation of the theory is that practicing some rule in all instances always generate good results overall than practicing any exception. Act Utilitarianism, as opposed to Rule Utilitarianism, stresses the consequence of the action without any reference about the rule followed. The objection against this theory says that it depicts following of such rules which will surely not produce best results. Another objection is that it may depict such rules, which are best to follow, but it is clear that none will do so. It is also very difficult sometimes to differentiate this theory from Act Utilitarianism (Rule Utilitarianism n. d. ). In the present context it is clearly not possible to predict the consequences of use of deception. Thus the theory requires following the general rule of non deception to reach the consequence but it leads to the objection that following this rule may not generate the desired result. Immanuel Kant’s Theory In his theory Kant depicted that there are two aspects of reality, one as we observe it to be and the other as it really is irrespective of any conceptual framework of the observer. He also told that human being observe the world through conceptual framework and not only by the inputs from the world. He argued that causality is not something we observe in nature but it is something we insist ourselves. According to him human beings are of free will and become subject of causality when through other’s experience. Kant stated that the reasoning of human beings dictate them to perform certain actions, i. e. , human beings are guided by their rationality. One is behaving rationally when s/he is consistent. The inconsistency takes place when one’s will guides a thing to happen and not to happen. The person then needs to articulate the principle whether the action has any negative implication on the principle itself. Kant’s rationality thus believes in setting examples for others whether they should follow the principle or not. Thus Kant’s rationality rules out some actions. According to Kant’s â€Å"Hypothetical Imperatives† reasons just help securing the thing which we actually wanted. But he argued the role of reasoning is not to issue â€Å"Hypothetical Imperatives† but to ensure that human beings do not act inconsistently. According to his thought about â€Å"Duty† one should not lie no matter how necessary it is. Kant advocated that morality is the most important aspect while judging somebody’s action. The â€Å"Golden Rule of Kant† advises to act on that maxim which leads to universal law (Kant’s Theory of Ethics n. d. ). According to Kant’ Theory human beings should act rationally in such a way that the action is consistent to universal law. But using deception can not be consistent to universal law. Again he stated that one should not lie no matter what the reason is. But deception is nothing but lying. Role of reasoning is not to help to find ways according to will but to guide towards consistency. Thus the main principle of Kant’s Theory completely applies to the dilemma here about whether to lie or not and whether to act in such a way which does not support the universal law. Methodology There are two methods of research/ data collection in research papers: that is quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative method is applicable where the problem is known, the problem is based on theories and can be measured in numbers. The analysis can be done on tables, graphs, pie charts, gnat charts and other statistical theories and it relies on assumptions. There are a number of methods which are under quantitative methods. These include surveys, experiments and quasi experiment. Qualitative method is different from quantitative because it is used to measure human feelings, attitudes and perceptions. In this research question both methods will be used. This is because most data will be collected from students who will go on homework fitness and other available research work carried out from somewhere else on the topic. The problem of this research question is how and which direction the research problem will take. There is always a connection between the research from the research question and the methods or the collection tools used, since it influences the conclusions and the recommendations. Qualitative method will be used to collect the student’s opinions, attitudes, perceptions and feelings on the homework fitness. Interviews will be carried out as well as observation will be done. Quantitative method will be used in collecting actual facts in numerical at the same time; analysis of the data will be done in the form of tables, graphs and other statistical tools. The data for this research has been obtained from internet sources, books and journals. These two sources of data collections have weaknesses as described below Sources of data The data that will be used in this research will be collected from: – i. Books ii. Internet i. Books: Most of the materials to be used in this report will be collected from books. Many books have been written covering issues of students. I will collect the relevant material from books that show the relationship between students engaging in fitness homework on student’s fitness level. Books will offer me with good general information that will assist me to complete this project. Most books have bibliography from the back where more information about student’s fitness home will be obtained. ii. Internet The internet is also a very good source of data. In the internet different topics have been covered. Through the internet I will collect the relevant materials that show the relationship between students engaging in fitness home on student’s fitness level. Through the internet I will be able to get the latest journals and conference papers that cover my topic in greater depths. Through the internet I will be able also to request for more materials in the form of CDs for further reference. Through the internet I will learn more from conference papers about the relationship between students engaging in fitness homework on student fitness level. For further reference I will use the internet facilities in offloading more relevant literature form digital library. Data collection tools and methods The relevant data to be used in this research will be collected in two ways namely:- i. By use of questionnaires ii. Through Interviews. Questionnaires The data that will be used in this report will be collected through questionnaires. Questionnaire involves asking various questions from the students, parents, teachers concern the question topic. This will be used to obtain important information about the relationship between students engaging in fitness homework on student’s fitness level. This research will employ two categories of questionnaires. The first category of questionnaires will be structured or close ended. Here I will offer a list of all possible alternatives from which respondent best describes the situation. They will be in form of multiple choices. A question will be asked and below it will be a list of all possible alternatives will be provided. The advantage of using questionnaires is that most people do not want to think hard, the answers are there and the respondent cannot be intimidated. Unstructured or open ended types of questionnaires will also be employed to make this research a success. These types of questions will give the respondent freedom of response and permit an individual to respond in his or her own words. Through this type of questionnaires we will be able to get more information about relationship between students engaging in fitness homework on student’s fitness level, different from or in more detailed way than what we have. These questionnaires will be researcher administered. The researcher goes with the questionnaires himself and administers the questions by himself. Interviews The data to be used in this research will also be collected through interviews. An interview is an oral administration of questionnaire or interview schedule. It will involve a face to face encounter schedule. It will also involve a face to face encounter. This interview schedules will be in two forms, structured and structured questions or semi structural questions. Responses during interviews could be recorded either by note-taking or tape recording. Expected Result a) Keeping records of attendance of police officer to identify the lateness of police officers this will assist in ensuring police officer with problem of attendant or absenteeism have been identified and rectified. . b) Good communication system. Goo communicated systems have been used to identify police officers who have problems within the force but have resorted to report. C good disciplinary procedures have been implementing to be followed when a police officer has been found with a problem. D. sexual harassment policy has been implemented by the force and reporting procedures have been written down to ensure that the police officer whose has been sexually harassed has been reported and the matters investigated. Sexually harassment police is one of the best systems that has been implemented to help reduce of the problem E. cord of conduct for the police to be followed any police officer who does not follow the cord of ethics laid down will be said to contravene the systems that have been laid down. F. racial discrimination the police force has laid down grievance procedures to be followed in case there is racial discrimination. This is a system that is related with the other system of sexual discrimination. There is also whistle blowing police that has been laid down by police officers to detect police officers who are not working in line with the police department. Conclusion-: The implemented systems by most police force or law agencies relates to the policies that has been laid down by the police force. The policies form systems to be used to identify a problem within the force. Various policies have been emulated to include racial discrimination, sexual discrimination whistle blowing and grievance procedures. Deception among police officers will amount to failure of police officer to perform his duties. References Armstrong M. 2001. A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, Kogan Page Limited . Folger, R. 2001. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds. ), Research in social issues in management: 3–31. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Mutai, B (2000) – How to write quality research proposal: a complete and simplified recipe. The Urey publications. Kathari, C . R. (2003) – Research Methodology Methods and Techniques- WISHwa Prakashan, New Delhi.

Changing Culture at Pizza Hut

Changing Culture at Pizza Hut and Yum! Brands, Inc. The concept of corporate culture has captured the imagination of executives for years. For executives struggling to manage organizational change, understanding their organization’s culture has become paramount before undertaking such a change. They realize that significant strategic and structural realignment cannot occur if it is not supported by the organization’s norms and values. Organization cultures are created by leaders and, therefore, one of the most important functions of a leader is the creation, management, and sometimes the destruction of a culture. An organization’s culture re? ects the values, beliefs and attitudes of its members. These values and beliefs foster norms that in? uence employees’ behaviors. Organizational cultures evolve imperceptibly over years. Unlike mission and vision statements, they are never written down, but are the soul of an organization. Cultures are collections of unspoken rules and traditions and operate 24 hours a day. They determine the quality of organizational life. Cultures determine much of what happens within an organization. While managers are aware of their organization’s culture(s), they are often unsure about ow to in? uence it. If cultures are powerful in? uencers of behaviors, they must be created. One way to analyze shared assumptions is by exploring top management’s answers to the following questions: 1. How do people in this organization accomplish their work? 2. Who succeeds in this organization? Who doesn’t? 3. How and when do people interact with one another? Who participates? 4. What kinds of work styles are valued in this organization? 5. What is expected of leaders in this organization? 6. What aspects of performance are discussed most in evaluations? The purpose of this article is to share with you how senior leaders at Pizza Hut in particular and at Yum! Brands, Inc. (Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC) in general answered these questions and were able to create a new culture after the restaurants were spun off from PepsiCo Inc. Culture change does not occur in a vacuum. It is an integral part of the company’s fabric. To change a company’s culture, rewards systems, leader behaviors, and organizational designs must be created Acknowledgments: This research was sponsored by a research grant from the OxyChem Corporation. The primary focus of this article is Pizza Hut and how Pizza Hut both generated and experienced the culture change at Yum! It is based, primarily, on the thoughts, re? ections and opinions of senior managers who experienced and helped communicate the changes discussed in this article. The authors would like to acknowledge the constructive comments made by Steve Arneson, Leon Avery, Chris Koski, Mike Rawlings and Don, and Leslie Ritter. 319 to support the change, as the experience of Pizza Hut demonstrates. THE SPIN-OFF AND PIZZA HUT Started in 1958 by the Carney brothers, Dan and Frank, Pizza Hut played a major role in turning pizza from an Italian specialty into a mass-market, mainstream food. Pizza Hut had developed a reputation for and commitment to product quality that was ‘‘built into the bones’’ of restaurant managers, and with it, great pride in the brand. By the mid 1990s, Pizza Hut had become a powerful brand, with some 8,000 U. S. -based restaurants, 140,000 employees and over $5 billion dollars in system-wide sales. One internal Pizza Hut market researcher estimated that over 90 percent of American pizza eaters had tried a Pizza Hut pizza. One of the key drivers of the success of Pizza Hut was PepsiCo. Along with KFC and Taco Bell, Pizza Hut was and had long been part of the PepsiCo Restaurant Division. PepsiCo had brought its national marketing muscle to the Pizza Hut brand, raising sales and increasing brand visibility. But it had also brought something that had a major impact on Pizza Hut: the PepsiCo management system. Even before Jack Welch made General Electric Co. ’s personnel management system the envy of American industry, PepsiCo had a reputation for producing great general managers. Its personnel planning system, shepherded by a set of organizational psychology Ph. D. consigliore in each of PepsiCo’s operating divisions, produced a stellar cast of professional managers. This system, layered on an existent Pizza Hut founding culture, was far from a natural ? t for the quick-service restaurant industry. PepsiCo was what Kerr and Slocum would call a market culture with a performancebased reward system. PepsiCo’s very fast moving, individually focused, consumerpackaged goods, entrepreneurial culture would prove not a great ? t for the relatively mature, slow-moving, team-oriented, quickservice restaurant business. 20 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS The integration of these two companies, PepsiCo and Pizza Hut, resembled a failed vinaigrette: a large amount of oil slowly churning in one direction, overlaid by a thin layer of vinegar, a whirlwind of speed moving in the opposite direction. The vinegar represents the high-potential PepsiCo general managers rapidly moving among the many divisions and corporate of? ces of PepsiCo. Smart, ambitious, competitive and results-driven, they were attracted by PepsiCo’s ability to move them up fast and give them a breadth of management experience in different PepsiCo businesses. A rising star might spend two years in ? eld marketing at Pepsi Cola North America, a year and a half in product marketing at Frito-Lay, an additional 18 months as a product brand manager there, two years at Pepsi Cola International, followed by a senior director position in marketing at Taco Bell, etc. The bottom layer, the oil, represented the bulk of Pizza Hut’s operations, staffed by hard working, dedicated, long-tenured restaurant-focused operators who loved the Pizza Hut brand and the restaurant business. They were less likely to be at the top of their class in college and less likely in fact to have graduated from college. Many had started as cooks, or dishwashers or delivery drivers. Slowly, as they had mastered the complexity of running retail operations and built their experience, they would move up the system. A select few even reached the top of operations, where they shared leadership positions with PepsiCo general managers, some of whom had non-operational functional backgrounds (in ? nance, say, or even marketing,) and who were doing their ‘‘ops rotation. ’ This two-tiered system of PepsiCo ‘‘short termers’’ and Pizza Hut restaurant-dedicated ‘‘lifers’’ had a number of built-in tensions and misalignments, including:  Home office glorification: Business was done in the restaurants, but ‘‘the power and the glory,’’ as well as the field programs, all originated in corporate headquar ters, whether Pizza Hut’s in Dallas, Texas, Yum! ’s in Louisville, Kentucky or PepsiCo’s in Purchase, New York. Top management’s line of sight was focused away from the restaurants. Short-term mentality: The ‘‘up or out’’ of the PepsiCo professional management system, a reward system linking short-term results to individual rewards, created pressure to make one’s mark and make it quickly. Anything that took too long to build or was built for long-term impact was a hard sell.  Lack of continuity: The need for quick success and the relatively rapid turnover in headquarters management made for a ‘‘program of the month’’ mentality.  Finance first headset: ‘‘Making plan’’ seemed sacrosanct in PepsiCo’s results-driven organization. This was often perceived by the ‘‘restaurateurs,’’ and even by some franchisees, to be at the cost of commitment to long-term restaurant essentials like product and asset quality.  Passive resistance in the field: The perception of short-term focus combined with a ‘‘program of the month’’ mentality engendered, at its worst, a system of passive resistance in field operations—compliance without commitment. Field operators, especially franchisees, often felt secure in the knowledge that if they just delayed program implementation long enough, Pizza Hut management would turn over and the new group would charge out with the ‘‘next great idea. ’ A performance-based, consumer packaged goods company like PepsiCo was not a natural ? t with the restaurant business. But whether it was bad business ? t, strategic or culture misalignment, or simply lack of tolerance for the restaurants business’ relatively low m argins and slow growth (despite its huge cash ? ow), PepsiCo gave up on Pizza Hut and its restaurants, spinning off its entire restaurant division in 1997, under the name Tricon Global Restaurants, Inc. , now Yum! Brands. ALIGNING BUSINESS/ CULTURE Yum! anagement understood that they had to create a radically different culture than the one at PepsiCo if the new company was to succeed. PepsiCo is primarily a consumer packaged goods company. Direct interaction with consumers takes place through advertising, or is mediated by supermarkets and other retail and wholesale establishments. Marketing was king, and at the time of the spin-off, one of the kings of marketing, Roger Enrico, was the CEO. Tricon Global Restaurants, Inc. was a restaurant company. Hundreds of thousands of low-pay, high turnover front-line mployees interacted with millions of customers a week in some 30,000 restaurants around the world. Quality control was not in the hands of process manufacturing gurus as at Pepsi C ola or Frito-Lay, but in those of part-time, often teenage employees making discrete decisions about quality with every product served. This posed an enormously different challenge for top management at Yum! PepsiCo was a holding company. If general managers made their ? nancial numbers and grew their people, then headquarters people left each general manager alone to run his or her business. Synergies across various lines of business were simply not a high priority on PepsiCo’s strategic agenda. In the restaurant division, this resulted in three strong, independent consumer brands. In effect, the three restaurant brands were really three separate companies, with independent cultures, information technology (IT) systems, operations, ? eld management practices, human resource systems, etc. Yum! , saddled with a large debt by PepsiCo and in the relatively lower margin restaurant business, was in no position to economically justify itself as a holding company overseeing three independent restaurant businesses. It had to look for operating synergies, shared resources, etc. It had to be much more of an operating company. A shift from three independent companies to one company with three independent restaurant brands was required for ? nancial survival. Top management needed to meld three independent company cultures into one shared culture and one set of restaurant-focused values, built on a set of shared functions (e. g. , IT, bene? ts and compensation, legal). Succeeding at Pizza Hut could no longer be about making it to Purchase, New 321 York to work for PepsiCo. It had to be about making the customer experience in Pizza Hut restaurants great. David Novak, newly named vice chairman at Yum! had already started creating a restaurant-focused culture during his stint as president of KFC. Novak was fond of saying that he hated the term ‘‘culture’’ because it reminded him of germs. But his savvy understanding of how to build a restaurantfocused business culture was one of the reasons why he had been selected to run Yum! With little time between his selection and spin-off date, the new restaurant-focused culture was going to have to be jump-started. Launch date: October 7, 1997. CREATING THE CULTURE OF YUM! BRANDS Changing and integrating the culture of three companies with very strong founders, founding traditions and underlying assumptions about what constitutes success would be an enormous challenge, even after the homogenizing effects of PepsiCo culture were factored in. The actions that Yum! took to push its culture toward a desired end-state alignment with its business strategy and business model included: 1. Starting with a set of shared values to de? ne a culture across the three brands; 2. Founding the new company in a way that that embodied its new culture; 3. Using titles to signal intentions and signify new cultural meanings; 4. Creating a coaching management system to maximize restaurant performance; 5. Developing a recognition culture to reinforce cultural behaviors; 6. Realigning reward systems to validate and ‘‘walk the talk’’ on the values; and 7. Measuring the effectiveness and commitment of senior managers to the values. Starting with Shared Values The political philosopher, Hannah Arendt, trying to distinguish what was unique and 322 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS uccessful about the American Revolution (vs. those of France, and Russia, for example), focused on the concept of founding— both as a source of authority and as a statement of the power and commitment that comes from being a founder. The founding that was America’s Revolution was encoded in two distinct documents: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution . The former served to articulate those values that were distinct to America and the latter to codify them into workable systems and processes of government. Whether the leaders of Yum! ad read Arendt is unknown, but they intuitively understood the elements that had made the American experiment unique—and they incorporated them into the values statement and the launch of the new company. Rather than start with yet another statement of corporate values, they declared their differences with the ‘‘mother country,’’ that is, PepsiCo, with a set of ‘‘Founding Truths. ’’ The nine distinct statements in this one shared document were Yum! ’s ‘‘Declaration of Independence. ’’ They announced what Yum! would stand for, while at the same time differentiating the new company from its progenitor— he PepsiCo Restaurant Division. For example, one statement reads, ‘‘The RGM (Restaurant Gene ral Manager) is our #1 Leader . . . not senior management. ’’ Another reads, ‘‘Great Operations and Marketing Innovation Drive Sales . . . no ? nger-pointing. ’’ These two statements suggest both the direction Yum! wanted to take and the behaviors it wanted to avoid. Taken together, the nine statements clearly demarcate both the essentials of a genuinely restaurant-focused company and the differences between what employees could expect from Yum! and what the restaurants and their operators had resented in PepsiCo. The statement of shared values, Yum! ’s ‘‘How We Work Together’’ principles, doesn’t differentiate Yum! from its competitors. Values statements rarely can serve this role, and Yum! ’s restaurant-focused, but otherwise standard values certainly can’t: customer focus, belief in people, recognition, coaching and support, accountability, excellence, positive energy, teamwork—who could be against these? Instead, as we’ll demonstrate, they served more to structure processes and systems and stand as a code for measurable behavior. In other words, they served the role of the U. S. Constitution. And, like the Constitution, while the details of the document weren’t easy to remember, their impact was ubiquitous. The Founding The launch of a large, new public, U. S. -based company, whether from spin-off, merger or acquisition, usually follows a rather standard process. You ring the opening bell of the New York Stock Exchange, throw a big launch event at corporate headquarters, presumably beamed live to division headquarters and by videotape to international locations, blare the news across the corporation’s internal media and push your best foot forward in the press. In this regard, the launch of Yum! followed the same format: Wall Street, a big event in Louisville, Kentucky, featuring the new Yum! Management team and the restaurant brand presidents, moderated by then ‘‘Good Morning, America’’ co-host Joan Lunden and beamed around the country. But if the launch was going to embody the culture, as enunciated in the ‘‘Founding Truths’’ and the ‘‘How We Work Together Principles,’’ with its principles of putting restaurants and their managers first, it was necessary to turn the usual launch format on its head. Yum! id this in three ways: by making local activities the center of the action instead of the headquarters event; by centering activities on restaurant managers, and by signing up those managers as ‘‘founders. ’’ The local events were focused primarily on enlisting local restaurant general managers in the new company. Activities centered on team-building exercises for the managers designed by Yum! ’s organizational and leadership development team. These were simple, but often powerful group activities. For example, the local event that one of the authors facilitated for some 200 participants in Miami, Florida, epresented the ? rst time that area Pizza Hut, KFC and Taco Bell managers had ever met together in one place. There were managers who ran restaurants of different brands, often adjacent to each other, who had never met! The simple act of sharing personal biographies and store histories created new connections. After two hours of team-building activities, the message that we were now one company, not three, and that we were part of a team together came across loud and clear. The national event reinforced the local event rather than the other way around. The invitation to and attendance primarily by restaurant managers told them they were important. This was reinforced by the national event which stressed the primary role of the RGM and introduced the ‘‘Founding Truths,’’ and it was graphically embodied in the new Yum! stock certi? cate, which featured one real manager from Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC on its front. The most powerful part of each local event was saved for the end. Each locality had been supplied with a large poster featuring the new companies ‘‘Founding Truths. ’’ The poster was put outside the event meeting room, along with a set of magic markers. The managers were invited, on their way out, to sign their names on the poster and to become a ‘‘founder,’’ but only if they agreed with the principles of the new company. They were told that no top managers would be there to watch, and that there would be no penalty for not signing. It was strictly voluntary. They were, in effect, invited to sign the company’s ‘‘Declaration of Independence,’’ and in doing so, make a public commitment to the culture and the company. Over 80 percent of the attending RGMs left their signatures. ‘‘Founder’s Day’’ as it is now called, has become a yearly event celebrating the culture of Yum! Titles Given the symbolic importance of titles, Yum! was smart enough to actively use title changes to signal culture changes. ‘‘Corporate Headquarters’’ was re-named 323 the ‘‘Restaurant Support Center,’’ signifying that the restaurants were the central focus of the company. Presidents of the KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut were, at least initially, re-named ‘‘chief concept officers,’’ signifying that there was now only one company with three concepts, not three companies. The entire above-restaurant management team also had their titles changed from ‘‘managers’’ to ‘‘coaches. ’ Area managers were now ‘‘area coaches,’’ operations directors were ‘‘market coaches’’ and division vice presidents became ‘‘head coaches. ’’ It was one thing to state that coaching was a company value—it wa s quite another to construct an entire management system based on coaching—to embed that value in the way the company worked. That was to be perhaps the biggest culture change of all. Coaching The idea that coaching could be something that all associates in a company could have to improve their performance, right down to the front lines, and that every manager had the capacity to coach may still appear radical, or at least improbable. Pizza Hut itself wasn’t even sure it could be done when it started the process. There were two incentives to create a coaching culture in operations: first, business growth had stalled and the company needed a jump-start and second, the PepsiCo management system was incongruent with the quick-service restaurant business. PepsiCo’s focus on individual, instead of team success, its short-term mentality and the intensely financial results driven culture had its strengths and its shortcomings. It was not a culture that could lead to sustained team performance in a restaurant. For example, under PepsiCo, management had been by exception. As Pizza Hut chief operating officer (COO) Aylwin Lewis put it before a national conference on coaching and mentoring, ‘‘If you’re a good performer, you get left alone; if you’re a poor performer, you get an action plan. ’’ In other words, getting the kind of management attention embodied in effective coaching and training to build 324 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS managerial competencies was seen as a sign of failure. The short-term focus of PepsiCo’s management system had meant that fixing things quickly was a strength. But short-term fixes became dysfunctional for building longterm capabilities through coaching. Finally, the focus on individual instead of team performance made it difficult to coach. Coaching ultimately has to be about the team and the person to be coached. It can’t be about the personal success story of the coach. Coaching supported the restaurantfocused culture in a number of ways. First, it required physical proximity. It’s best done face-to-face. Coaching can’t be done very effectively from another state. That meant above-restaurant management would have to start spending time in the restaurants. Second, it required interpersonal and operational, as well as ? nancial competence. To coach a restaurant manager, you had to know the business at least as well as they did and know how to share that knowledge, or you’d be wasting their time. Shifting the basis of control to knowledge from command of resources and rewards would force ‘‘general’’ managers to become ‘‘restaurant coaches. ’’ Third, it required partnership. The coach can’t be successful and have the player fail. Market coaches, area coaches and restaurant managers were networking, mirroring the teamwork required in the restaurants. COACHING MAY BE THE RIGHT WAY TO GO—BUT HOW DO YOU GET THERE? The first 90 days: Before anything else had been done, job titles were changed. All operations vice presidents, directors and area managers became ‘‘coaches. ’’ That was the ‘‘changeable moment’’ that signaled to employees that a new mode of operating was inevitable. There was ‘‘boot camp’’ for the entire operations team. The fastest way to ensure that all managers could master and understand the skills of the average employee was to bring them together, make them re-learn the basics of the business of making pizza and then test them o their competence was ‘‘certified. ’’ While this was going on, the organizational development team was developing job maps and outlining roles, responsibilities, outcomes, and behaviors for the role of coach. With title, certi? cation and job map, the coaching culture was launched. A nd barely stayed a? oat. The epiphany on what wasn’t working occurred to Aylwin Lewis during a roundtable with area coaches in Columbus, Ohio. One of the area coaches looked at him and said, ‘‘You’ve changed our titles and you’ve given us training and said, ‘Now, I want you to be in restaurants 80 percent of the time. Okay, now what do you want us to do there? What do we do with all that time? ’’ Without any existing precedents for building a new management system based on coaching, it wasn’t immediately apparent that a model of coaching was needed. Coaching was a skill that had to be taught. People needed a model for how to coach. In PepsiCo, coaching wasn’t rewarded and therefore not practiced. A coaching culture model needed to be developed at Yum! It had to be practical, simple and action-oriented—it had to ? t the fast paced, high-turnover environment of the restaurant business. A teachable threestep process, with an easy to learn acronym, EAR, was developed: taught all market coaches, while the market coaches bypassed all area coaches and personally taught all restaurant managers. This simple method had huge implications for fostering a new culture at Yum!. First, it meant that all the coaches had to learn the coaching model well enough to teach it. Second, they had to demonstrate their commitment to it in order to teach it well, and were held accountable for achieving results. It would not have had the same impact if the training department employees had led the classes. Third, it put the one level down coaches (the direct supervisors of the students) on notice for accountability to their immediate subordinates. Fourth, operators were able to bring real-life examples into the role-plays, increasing the relevance, impact, usefulness and credibility of the coaching material. In addition to training, coaching logs were created in each restaurant to document each coaching session, its lessons and commitments. Audiotapes of coaching sessions were circulated to restaurant managers to provide real-life demonstrations. Creating a coaching culture had begun. Recognition Top managers learned from Southwest Airlines Co. the power of recognition to motivate employees, and to elicit positive discretionary behavior among employees. Southwest Airlines separates reward from recognition, celebrating behaviors that reinforce the culture, creating an elaborate, yet spontaneous process of positive behavioral feedback. Recognition is done by everyone, not just senior managers. This means that all levels of supervisors can recognize behavior, empowering those supervisors, but also ensuring that the recognition is timely, specific and meaningful to the person who receives it. There were three keys to building a successful recognition program at Pizza Hut: 1. Starting at the top; 2. Ensuring it was continuous and ongoing, and got built into communications; and 3. Reinforcing it publicly. 325 Exploring Observe/ask/listen Analyzing Facts? Isolated or pattern? Root cause? Responding Teach new skills and knowledge Provide feedback Offer support and gain commitment Operational leaders (not training personnel) would be responsible for teaching all coaching classes for those two levels down from them. For example, COO Aylwin Lewis bypassed head coaches and personally Starting at the top: David Novak, now chairman of Yum! , formerly president of Pizza Hut (and of KFC) single-handedly brought recognition to Pizza Hut. He said that he had learned the power of recognition during his job as chief operating of? cer at one of the PepsiCo divisions. His deep-seated belief in the power of recognition and his commitment to it made all the difference. Novak’s ? rst foray into recognition as president of a division occurred at KFC, where he created the ‘‘? oppy chicken’’ award. The award itself embodied the distinction between recognition and reward. It was one of those rubbery ? oppy chickens used for pranks or jokes that would be as likely to show up on Halloween as at any other time. In other words, it wasn’t valuable in and of itself—it wasn’t a watch, or a ring, fancy clock, tie tack, brooch, earrings, etc. Three things made it valuable as recognition. First, it was numbered. So it wasn’t just a ? oppy chicken. It was the #45 ? oppy chicken. Second, it was signed and had a personal message written on it. And third, a picture of the recipient and Novak was taken, framed and sent to the recipient. A $100 gift certi? ate was also given, but Novak was clear to point out that this was simply an add-on: ‘‘We know you can’t eat the chicken. ’’ At Pizza Hut, Novak started the ‘‘Big Cheese’’ award—a rubber cheese hat (similar to those worn by fans of the Green Bay Packers football team. ) This was also numbered, and personally inscribed. The recipient had to wear it while being photographed with the president. When Novak became vice chairman of Yum! at the spin-off, his successor as president of Pizza Hut, Mike Rawlings, continued the tradition. During his ? ve-year tenure, Rawlings handed out over 500 ‘‘Big Cheese’’ awards. The frequent tears, positive emotions and heartfelt gratefulness of the recipients were reinforcing for culture and for the giver. One author personally experienced the impact of getting the award in front of 600 employees at an ‘‘All-Team’’ meeting. The power of the award is in the public recognition. The author’s $100 gift certi? cate remains unspent. 326 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS To create a recognition culture, rather than simply a recognition award, things couldn’t stop and start with Novak. He encouraged his immediate reports to create their own recognition awards, and they soon did. What followed was a slow process of osmosis, reinforced by the positive impact of recognition. For example, the chief operating of? cer created a recognition award and gave it out at all operations meetings. The positive feedback and public recognition that accompanied it built pride and goodwill amongst recipients and reinforced their positive behavior. The obvious and widespread positive feedback gave a reason for head coaches to create their own recognition awards for their meetings, and so on down the line right into the restaurants. Like osmosis, the spread of recognition was uneven and sometimes slow. But within three years, recognition awards were regularly appearing in restaurants, as managers used recognition to motivate front-line employees. And because the spread was spontaneous—never dictated by ‘‘corporate’’—and completely voluntary, there was a sense of ownership for the behavior. Recognition built deep roots. Those roots had the time to grow because once the recognition tradition started, the continuous, ongoing commitment of senior leaders kept it alive, front and center. Every public meeting included recognition awards on the agenda. Over time, the continuity of recognition starting generating a sense of anticipation and ‘‘pull’’ for awards. Within three years, recognition had become so routine and omnipresent that it lost any tinge of self-awareness and simply became ‘‘the way we do things around here. ’’ Rewards The balanced scorecard was the primary mechanism for allocating rewards and handing out bonuses for restaurant managers. Two changes to the reward system helped align it with the ‘‘Founding Truths’’ and ‘‘How We Work Together Principles’’ on which the new culture was based. First, people measurements were added to ? nancial measurements and customer measurements, reinforcing the ‘‘putting people ? rst’’ credo. It might have taken three years before all restaurant managers had been trained as coaches, but the scorecard was ? exible enough to allow for measuring the results of good coaching—such as reduced turnover—within a year. Second, in a move unprecedented in the industry, restaurant managers were given stock options as an outright block grant, and stock options were added to the list of performance incentives. Legally limited initially in the number of stock options it could award, Yum! chose to award its restaurant managers these options before their bosses, the area coaches, were able to get theirs. This powerfully reinforced the founding truth that the ‘‘RGM was #1,’’ and should act like an owner of the business. The symbolic value and the boost to management credibility was at least as important as the value of the options themselves. ?nancial of? cer of Yum! was let go, and his lack of cultural ? was cited as a reason, this sent a powerful signal that the cultural values of the company were important. RESULTS The nature of Pizza Hut’s business makes it very difficult to make causal links between the change in culture and changes in its business. For one thing, the main determinant of Pizza Hut sales is new product launches, somewhat orthogonal to culture as a sales determinant. For another, as a result of the spin-off, Yum! had been burdened with a hug e debt and was in the process of selling off its company-owned restaurants. This undoubtedly mpacted morale, potentially slowing the impact of culture change, and it may have skewed the same-store sales averages of the remaining restaurants, obfuscating the impact of culture. These points notwithstanding, during the ? rst four years of its culture change, Pizza Hut experienced record highs in same-store sales and a record low in restaurant manager turnover. In the ? ve years, from mid-1997 to mid-2002—when Pizza Hut was led by president Mike Rawlings, a time at the heart of the change in culture—same-store sales growth rose 19 percent, overall operating pro? doubled and margins improved to record highs. While these results may not have been caused directly by the change in culture, they were certainly consonant with it. ‘‘Founder’s Survey’’ results show strong belief in company leadership, commitment to and belief in the brand, and stro ng execution of the values at all levels. At the least, the changes in culture provided a strong foundation for and enablement of high performance. The management practices at PepsiCo and Yum! had a signi? cant impact on the cultures created in each organization. In a hologram, any fragment encapsulates the essence of the whole. Interpretations of a single management practice need to be consistent with the interpretation of other 327 Measurement ‘‘What gets measured, gets done,’’ is one of the oldest maxims of business. But when you’re trying to change a culture and using values to do it, what do you measure about the culture? Yum! answered this question in two ways. First, it created the ‘‘Founder’s Survey,’’ an annual company-wide survey that measured the company on its adherence to the ‘‘How We Work Together Principles. ’ All employees, except restaurant managers, were invited to participate, with participation rates in the mid-80 percentages. Results could be broken down by function and by levels, providing a picture on how different parts of the company perceived the company’s commitment to the culture. Managers were then required to come up with action plans for those areas where results were less than satisfactory. Second, Yum! created values-focused, 360-degree performance reviews, which were eventually pushed to the restaurant manager level. Individuals were held accountable for how they lived the values. When the chief management practices. Top managers at Yum! had the capacity to envision and enact a culture that inspired intense loyalty, strong commitment, increased productivity, and even greater pro? tability. To achieve consistency at Yum! and differentiate Yum! from PepsiCo, Yum! ’s top managers developed practices that were consistent with its culture. Cultural anthropologists for decades have studied the behaviors of members of numerous tribes. While each tribe might worship different ‘‘gods,’’ the behaviors of tribe members can be described using four concepts, all starting with the letter ‘‘T’’: Totems are things that are worshipped or prized; taboos are practices used to control or punish deviant behaviors or those not sanctioned by the tribe; traditions are practices that have been passed down through generations to preserve the status quo, and transitions (or rites of passages) are practices that serve to indoctrinate new members into the culture of the tribe. We summarize the differences in these four T’s between PepsiCo and Yum! n Table 1. Corporations have spent considerable amounts of money in response to consultants’ seductive promises of easy cultural change. Some managers have sought to replicate the strong cultures of successful companies, while others have tried to engineer commitment to a culture, in the hopes of increasing loyalty, productivit y, and/or pro? tability. Unfortunately, culture is rooted in the countless details of an organization’s life. How decisions are made, how careers are TABLE 1 Yum! Brands YUM! VERSUS PEPSICO: COMPARISON OF CULTURAL ARCHETYPESa TOTEMS Focus of attention: TABOOS Results without values ‘‘Quick hits’’ TRADITIONS Recognition TRANSITIONS Pizza ‘‘certification’’ and other ‘‘boot camps’’ for making products Becoming a ‘‘founder’’ Restaurants Team players Operations/marketing partnership Focus on people Effective operations Division interdependence Retail mentality Financial results Values without results Individual stars Lack of upward mobility Marketing is king Long-term projects without short-term results Not making a plan Coaching Restaurant General Manager is #1 Values driven Specialization PepsiCo People career Quarterly financial planning results review Move up or out Cross-functional rotations to build general managers Strong brand mentality Making a plan Division independence Wholesale/distribution mentality a This table is not meant to be a de? nitive anthropological statement. Rather, it represents perceptions of the differences between Yum! and PepsiCo corporate cultures. Note as well, that Yum! ‘‘traditions’’ tend to be founding behaviors and values created at its spin-off and continuously reinforced in systems, processes and leadership communications over its existence. 28 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS managed, how rewards are allocated—each small incident serves to convey some aspect of the organization’s culture. The founders of Yum! did not want to create a culture that perpetuated their own values and sense of immortality and stayed away from quick ? xes. What is the soul of Yum!? First, forget the numbers. Internal competition end s up making people less committed, creative, and caring. In the restaurant business, the lack of these three C’s leads to poor customer service, which ultimately affects store pro? tability. Second, people need appreciation. Big cheeses and other tokens of appreciation for talented high performers are an integral part of maintaining a strong culture. 329 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY For selected works on corporate culture and its impact on organizational performance, see Harrison Trice and Janice Beyer, The Cultures of Work Organizations (Prentice-Hall, 1993); Joanne Martin, Cultures in Organizations (Oxford University Press, 1992); Edgar Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed. (Jossey-Bass, 1992); Jackie Freiberg and Kevin Freiberg, NUTS! Southwest Airlines’ Crazy Recipe for Business and Personal Success (New York: Bard, 1966); James Higgins and Craig McAllaster, ‘‘Want Innovation? Then Use Cultural Artifacts that Support It,’’ Organizational Dynamics, 2002, 31, 74–84; Jeff Kerr and John Slocum, ‘‘Managing Corporate Cultures through Reward Systems,’’ Academy of Management Executive, 1987, 1, 99–108; and Jennifer Chatman and Karen Jehn, ‘‘Assessing the Relationship Between Industry Characteristics and Organizational Culture: How Different Can They Be? ’ Academy of Management Journal, 1994, 37, 522–553. Barry Mike is vice-president, internal communications, for the investment management ? rm T. Rowe Price. He previously spent seven years as director, internal communications at Pizza Hut. During his tenure there, he helped communicate his way through three presidents, one spin-off, one major restructuring, a downsizing, and a major culture shift. He has also worked closely during his career with the chairmen of Digital Equipment Corporation and Bell Atlantic. Mike’s educational background includes two master’s degrees as well as completion of his course work for a Ph. D. in Sociology from the University of Pennsylvania. In May 2001, he received his M. B. A. with honors from the Executive M. B. A. program at the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University (SMU). John W. Slocum Jr. holds the O. Paul Corley professorship in management at the Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University. He serves as the co-director for SMU’s Corporate Director’s Institute and is chairperson for the management and organizations department at the Cox School. He is the author of more than 24 books, over 130 articles, and has worked as a consultant in the human resources area for many Fortune 500 companies, including Lockheed Martin, IBM, and Aramark, among others. Currently, he is co-editor of the Journal of World Business, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies and associate editor of Organizational Dynamics. 330 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS