Teams

I have played hockey my whole life, so in retrospect i've been apart of roughly 16 teams. Some were successful and some were not. In my opinion the successful one's were the teams that wanted to be around each other even off the ice. When it came to practices and games we had a common goal, but further than that we simply liked each other as people and got along well.

As for the one boss structure, I am not quite sure of my stance. In some instances, I believe the saying "too many chiefs and not enough indians" implying that one chief would make tasks much more simple. On the other hand, I sometimes fear the idea of putting too much power on a sole individual. The teams of mine that had the most success were those that had a driven and motivated coach who at the same time respected and considered his players. In a work sense, a boss should want his/her organization to succeed, but should see the employees as talented individuals and not as just workers.

My example of my most successful teams resembles page 107 on high-performing teams. The book supports this idea by saying that the boss makes the employees aware of the teams' common goals, and allows the employees to carry out their actions in their own manner so long as the contribute what is necessary.

Opportunism

In my fraternity, various student members hold positions that allow the house to function properly day-to-day. Both the Vice president and the treasurer have access to the bank account and funds for the entire house of over 100 members. An opportunistic chance for them would be to embezzle some of that money for their own use or investment. They could use it to buy personal goods or could have some conscience and invest it looking to reimburse what they took and keep their gains. The 2 men appointed to these positions each year are usually of good character and morals. For that reason, I believe they have not and would not see their power as "opportunism". They respect the organization and everyone in it, and would never look to deface it. I am in the same position as I am the treasurer of my hockey team. I oversee all inflows and outflows of money in our account. I feel that the idea of being a "good citizen" plays a large role in people not acting opportunistically. I wouldn't want any other member of the organization to misuse my contributions, so I wouldn't want to do that to someone close to me, or anyone for that matter. I believe these explanations amount to being the same in that they all lead to not wanting to do wrong towards others, especially those that you have built relationships with. You want to build bridges and earn the respect and trust of other members of your organizations.

My experience with organizations

My whole life I have played hockey competitively. Levels were divided up by age groups and every 2 years the level changed. That being said every other year I was a part of the younger, new group. The other years I was one of the older players. On these teams, the beginning of the year always required everyone getting to know each other and learn each other's tendencies. By the end of the year, we all knew each other very well and had developed chemistry.

The transaction costs come at the beginning and end of each year. Each player develops over time and the cost of gaining or losing said player will increase. Every year coaches had to worry about losing the older players and gaining the younger. Personally I was worried about being the younger player that the next level coach wanted more.

Alan Krueger Econ 490

I graduated from Cornell University with a Bachelor's degree in Industrial & Labor Relations. After my undergraduate years, I received my PhD in Economics from Harvard. From 1994-95 I served as the Chief Economist at the United States Department of Labor and have published many books on various economic thoughts.

My main focus was on the economics of employment and wages. I did a lot of research on the correlation between minimum wages and employment rates, for example, comparing restaurants of NJ and Pennsylvania. My work is still relevant today because of the ongoing debate on minimum wage.

Aside from my previous studies, in 2009 I began to serve on President Barack Obama's cabinet as an economic advisor. In 2011, I was nominated by President Obama to be the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors.