Boston, MA, United States
Boston, MA, United States

Fisher College is a private, nonprofit, independent institution that grants both baccalaureate and associate degrees to a coeducational student body. Fisher's main campus is located on Beacon Street in the Back Bay neighborhood of Boston, and its satellite locations include North Attleborough, Brockton, and New Bedford. The College is accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges . Wikipedia.


Time filter

Source Type

News Article | February 15, 2017
Site: www.prweb.com

The Community for Accredited Online Schools, a leading resource provider for higher education information, has ranked the best schools with online programs in the state of New York for 2017. More than 70 schools were ranked overall, with Columbia University, New York University, Cornell University, Syracuse University and University at Buffalo coming in as the top four-year schools. Among two-year schools, Monroe Community College, Niagara County Community College, Hudson Valley Community College, Genesee Community College and Tompkins Cortland Community College earned top spots. “College-bound students have many options for post-secondary education in New York state, but they don’t necessarily need to travel to a campus to be successful,” said Doug Jones, CEO and founder of AccreditedSchoolsOnline.org. “The schools on this list are strong examples of what today’s online learning is all about: providing quality education to enhance student success outside of a traditional classroom environment.” Schools on the Best Online Schools list must meet specific base requirements to be included: each must be institutionally accredited and be classified as public or private not-for-profit. Each college was also scored based on additional criteria that includes cost and financial aid, variety of program offerings, student-teacher ratios, graduation rates, employment services and more. For more details on where each school falls in the rankings and the data and methodology used to determine the lists, visit: New York’s Best Online Four-Year Schools for 2017 include the following: Adelphi University Canisius College Clarkson University Columbia University in the City of New York Concordia College-New York Cornell University CUNY Graduate School and University Center CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice Dominican College of Blauvelt D'Youville College Fordham University Hofstra University Ithaca College Jewish Theological Seminary of America Keuka College LIU Post Marist College Medaille College Mercy College Metropolitan College of New York Mount Saint Mary College New York Institute of Technology New York University Niagara University Nyack College Pace University-New York Roberts Wesleyan College Rochester Institute of Technology Saint John Fisher College Saint Joseph's College-New York St. Bonaventure University St. John's University-New York St. Thomas Aquinas College Stony Brook University SUNY at Albany SUNY at Binghamton SUNY Buffalo State SUNY College at Brockport SUNY College at Oswego SUNY College at Plattsburgh SUNY College of Technology at Canton SUNY College of Technology at Delhi SUNY Empire State College SUNY Institute of Technology at Utica-Rome SUNY Maritime College SUNY Oneonta Syracuse University The College of Saint Rose The New School The Sage Colleges New York’s Best Two Year Online Schools for 2017 include the following: Bramson ORT College Cayuga Community College Corning Community College CUNY Borough of Manhattan Community College Finger Lakes Community College Fulton-Montgomery Community College Genesee Community College Herkimer College Hostos Community College Hudson Valley Community College Jamestown Community College Jefferson Community College Mohawk Valley Community College Monroe Community College Niagara County Community College North Country Community College Suffolk County Community College SUNY Broome Community College SUNY Orange SUNY Ulster SUNY Westchester Community College Tompkins Cortland Community College ### About Us: AccreditedSchoolsOnline.org was founded in 2011 to provide students and parents with quality data and information about pursuing an affordable, quality education that has been certified by an accrediting agency. Our community resource materials and tools span topics such as college accreditation, financial aid, opportunities available to veterans, people with disabilities, as well as online learning resources. We feature higher education institutions that have developed online learning programs that include highly trained faculty, new technology and resources, and online support services to help students achieve educational success.


News Article | December 8, 2016
Site: www.chromatographytechniques.com

Nothing ruins a potentially fun event like putting it on your calendar. In a series of studies, researchers found that scheduling a leisure activity like seeing a movie or taking a coffee break led people to anticipate less enjoyment and actually enjoy the event less than if the same activities were unplanned. That doesn't mean you can't plan at all: The research showed that roughly planning an event (but not giving a specific time) led to similar levels of enjoyment as unplanned events. "People associate schedules with work. We want our leisure time to be free-flowing," said Selin Malkoc, co-author of the study and assistant professor of marketing at The Ohio State University's Fisher College of Business. "Time is supposed to fly when you're having fun. Anything that limits and constrains our leisure chips away at the enjoyment." Malkoc conducted the study with Gabriela Tonietto, a doctoral student at Washington University in St. Louis. Their results are published in the Journal of Marketing Research. In the paper, they report on 13 separate studies that looked at how scheduling leisure activities affects the way we think about and experience them. In one study, college students were given a calendar filled with classes and extracurricular activities and asked to imagine that this was their actual schedule for the week. Half of the participants were then asked to make plans to get frozen yogurt with a friend two days in advance and add the activity to their calendar. The other half imagined running into a friend and deciding to get frozen yogurt immediately. Results showed that those who scheduled getting frozen yogurt with their friend rated the activity as feeling more like a "commitment" and "chore" than those who imagined the impromptu get-together. "Scheduling our fun activities leads them to take on qualities of work," Malkoc said. The effect is not just for hypothetical activities. In an online study, the researchers had people select an entertaining YouTube video to watch. The catch was that some got to watch their chosen video immediately. Others chose a specific date and time to watch the video and put in on their calendar. Results showed that those who watched the scheduled video enjoyed it less than those who watched it immediately. While people seem to get less enjoyment out of precisely scheduled activities, they don't seem to mind if they are more roughly scheduled. In another study, the researchers set up a stand on a college campus where they gave out free coffee and cookies for students studying for finals. Before setting up the stand, they handed out tickets for students to pick up their coffee and cookies either at a specific time or during a two-hour window. As they were enjoying their treat, the students filled out a short survey. The results showed that those who had a specifically scheduled break enjoyed their time off less than did those who only roughly scheduled the break. "If you schedule leisure activities only roughly, the negative effects of scheduling disappear," Malkoc said. Aim to meet a friend "this afternoon" rather than exactly at 1 p.m. One study showed that even just setting a starting time for a fun activity is enough to make it less enjoyable. "People don't want to put time restrictions of any kind on otherwise free-flowing leisure activities," she said. Malkoc said these findings apply to short leisure activities that last a few hours or less. The results also have implications for leisure companies that provide experiences for their customers, Malkoc said. For example, some amusement parks offer tickets for their most popular rides that allow people to avoid long lines. But this research suggests that people will enjoy these rides less if the tickets are set for a particular time. Instead, the parks should give people a window of time to board the ride, which would be the equivalent of rough scheduling in this study.


News Article | December 8, 2016
Site: www.eurekalert.org

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Nothing ruins a potentially fun event like putting it on your calendar. In a series of studies, researchers found that scheduling a leisure activity like seeing a movie or taking a coffee break led people to anticipate less enjoyment and actually enjoy the event less than if the same activities were unplanned. That doesn't mean you can't plan at all: The research showed that roughly planning an event (but not giving a specific time) led to similar levels of enjoyment as unplanned events. "People associate schedules with work. We want our leisure time to be free-flowing," said Selin Malkoc, co-author of the study and assistant professor of marketing at The Ohio State University's Fisher College of Business. "Time is supposed to fly when you're having fun. Anything that limits and constrains our leisure chips away at the enjoyment." Malkoc conducted the study with Gabriela Tonietto, a doctoral student at Washington University in St. Louis. Their results are published in the Journal of Marketing Research. In the paper, they report on 13 separate studies that looked at how scheduling leisure activities affects the way we think about and experience them. In one study, college students were given a calendar filled with classes and extracurricular activities and asked to imagine that this was their actual schedule for the week. Half of the participants were then asked to make plans to get frozen yogurt with a friend two days in advance and add the activity to their calendar. The other half imagined running into a friend and deciding to get frozen yogurt immediately. Results showed that those who scheduled getting frozen yogurt with their friend rated the activity as feeling more like a "commitment" and "chore" than those who imagined the impromptu get-together. "Scheduling our fun activities leads them to take on qualities of work," Malkoc said. The effect is not just for hypothetical activities. In an online study, the researchers had people select an entertaining YouTube video to watch. The catch was that some got to watch their chosen video immediately. Others chose a specific date and time to watch the video and put in on their calendar. Results showed that those who watched the scheduled video enjoyed it less than those who watched it immediately. While people seem to get less enjoyment out of precisely scheduled activities, they don't seem to mind if they are more roughly scheduled. In another study, the researchers set up a stand on a college campus where they gave out free coffee and cookies for students studying for finals. Before setting up the stand, they handed out tickets for students to pick up their coffee and cookies either at a specific time or during a two-hour window. As they were enjoying their treat, the students filled out a short survey. The results showed that those who had a specifically scheduled break enjoyed their time off less than did those who only roughly scheduled the break. "If you schedule leisure activities only roughly, the negative effects of scheduling disappear," Malkoc said. Aim to meet a friend "this afternoon" rather than exactly at 1 p.m. One study showed that even just setting a starting time for a fun activity is enough to make it less enjoyable. "People don't want to put time restrictions of any kind on otherwise free-flowing leisure activities," she said. Malkoc said these findings apply to short leisure activities that last a few hours or less. The results also have implications for leisure companies that provide experiences for their customers, Malkoc said. For example, some amusement parks offer tickets for their most popular rides that allow people to avoid long lines. But this research suggests that people will enjoy these rides less if the tickets are set for a particular time. Instead, the parks should give people a window of time to board the ride, which would be the equivalent of rough scheduling in this study.


News Article | December 19, 2016
Site: www.chromatographytechniques.com

Consumers believe healthy food must be more expensive than cheap eats and that higher-priced food is healthier - even when there is no supporting evidence, according to new research. The results mean not only that marketers can charge more for products that are touted as healthy, but that consumers may not believe that a product is healthy if it doesn't cost more, researchers say. And this belief in the health power of expensive foods may lead people to some other surprising conclusions. For example, people in one study thought eye health was a more important issue for them when they were told about an expensive but unfamiliar food ingredient that would protect their vision. If the same ingredient was relatively cheap, people didn't think the issue it treated - eye health - was as important. "It's concerning. The findings suggest that price of food alone can impact our perceptions of what is healthy and even what health issues we should be concerned about," said Rebecca Reczek, co-author of the study and professor of marketing at The Ohio State University's Fisher College of Business. Reczek conducted the study with Kelly Haws of Vanderbilt University and Kevin Sample of the University of Georgia. Their results appear online in the Journal of Consumer Research. Reczek said she and her colleagues conducted the study to examine the lay theory that we have to pay more to eat healthfully. Lay theories are the common-sense explanations people use to understand the world around them, whether they are true or not. Messages consistent with the healthy = expensive lay theory are all around us, she said. One example is the "Whole Paycheck" nickname people have given to Whole Foods, which touts itself as "America's Healthiest Grocery Store." There are certainly categories of food where healthy is more expensive, such as some organic and gluten-free products, Reczek said. But it is not necessarily true all the time. Still, this research wasn't meant to investigate the true relationship between healthy foods and price - just people's perceptions of that relationship. The researchers conducted five related studies, all with different participants. In one, participants were given information on what they were told was a new product called "granola bites," which was given a health grade of either A- or C. They were then asked to rate how expensive the product would be. Participants who were told the health grade was A- thought the granola bites would be more expensive than did those who were told the grade was C. In a second study, the researchers found that the healthy = expensive belief operates in both directions. In this study, participants rated a breakfast cracker that they were told was more expensive as healthier than an identical cracker that cost less. But could this lay belief influence how people act? In the next experiment, a different group of people was asked to imagine that a co-worker had asked them to order lunch for them. Half the people were told the co-worker wanted a healthy lunch, while the others weren't give any instructions. On a computer screen, participants were given their choice of two different chicken wraps to choose for their co-worker, one called the Chicken Balsamic Wrap and the other called the Roasted Chicken Wrap. The ingredients were listed for both. The key was that for some participants the Chicken Balsamic Wrap was listed as more expensive, and for others the Roasted Chicken Wrap cost more. Results showed that when participants were asked to pick the healthiest option, they were much more likely to choose the more expensive chicken wrap - regardless of which one it was. "People don't just believe that healthy means more expensive - they're making choices based on that belief," Reczek said. It was the results of the next study that most intrigued Reczek. In this experiment, participants were told to imagine they were at a grocery store to buy trail mix and they were presented with four options, all at different price points. The option that the researchers were interested in was called the "Perfect Vision Mix." Some participants saw the mix touted as "Rich in Vitamin A for eye health." Others saw the line "Rich in DHA for eye health." While both Vitamin A and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) are indeed good for eye health, the researchers had previously determined that few people are familiar with DHA. Some participants saw the trail mix listed at an average price, while others saw it listed at a premium price above the other three trail mixes. Participants were then asked about their perceptions of the key ingredient in the trail mix, either Vitamin A or DHA. When the ingredient was Vitamin A, people thought it was equally important in a healthy diet, regardless of the price. But if the ingredient was DHA, participants thought it was a more important part of a healthy diet if it was in the expensive trail mix than when it was in the average-priced mix. "People are familiar with Vitamin A, so they feel they can judge its value without any price cues," Reczek said. "But people don't know much about DHA, so they go back to the lay theory that expensive must be healthier." But the healthy = expensive theory had an even more surprising effect. When participants were told DHA helped prevent macular degeneration, people thought this was a more important health issue when the trail mix with DHA was more expensive. When the DHA product was an average price, they were less concerned about macular degeneration. This effect was not seen with people who were told the trail mix had Vitamin A - again, probably because it was more familiar to the participants, Reczek said. In the final study, participants were asked to evaluate a new product that would have the brand slogan "Healthiest Protein Bar on the Planet." They were told this bar would compete against other products that averaged $2 per bar. Some participants were told this new bar would be $0.99, while others were told it would be $4. They were then given the opportunity to read reviews of the bar before they offered their own evaluation. Findings showed the participants read significantly more reviews when they were told the bar would cost only $0.99 than when it cost $4. "People just couldn't believe that the 'healthiest protein bar on the planet' would cost less than the average bar," Reczek said. "They had to read more to convince themselves this was true. They were much more willing to accept that the healthy bar would cost twice as much as average." While these results may be concerning for consumers, Reczek said there is a remedy. "We need to be aware of our expensive-equals-healthy bias and look to overcome it by searching out objective evidence," Reczek said. "It makes it easier for us when we're shopping to use this lay theory, and just assume we're getting something healthier when we pay more. But we don't have to be led astray. We can compare nutrition labels and we can do research before we go to the grocery store. We can use facts rather than our intuition."


News Article | October 28, 2016
Site: www.prweb.com

randrr, a career opportunities platform for the common good, today announced strategy and business operations expert Andy Spriggs will join its team as chief operating officer. Spriggs’ extensive list of accomplishments includes holding the titles of: “I am thrilled to have Andy Spriggs join randrr as chief operating officer,” said Terry Terhark, founder and CEO of randrr. “His diverse experience and leadership will help grow randrr as we bring our platform to market. Andy's background and experience working in this industry will help guide randrr as a market-leading solution for people to discover their career destiny.” “randrr has created a remarkable, disruptive brand, and I am beyond excited to be a part of this emerging company,” said Spriggs. “The team is building a platform that will revolutionize and reinvent recruiting forever, and that’s something I’m incredibly passionate about.” Spriggs holds a master’s degree in business administration from The Ohio State University Fisher College of Business and a bachelor’s degree from The Ohio State University. About randrr randrr (Reinvent and Revolutionize Recruiting) puts the power in the hands of people looking for career opportunities. With randrr, you can gain transparency into the companies you love, research and discover opportunities, engage employers, or get hired — all while keeping your privacy intact. No more getting profiled by endless headhunters. No more resume black holes. No more wondering where you stand after you express interest in an opportunity. randrr helps people discover their career destiny.


News Article | December 19, 2016
Site: www.eurekalert.org

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Consumers believe healthy food must be more expensive than cheap eats and that higher-priced food is healthier - even when there is no supporting evidence, according to new research. The results mean not only that marketers can charge more for products that are touted as healthy, but that consumers may not believe that a product is healthy if it doesn't cost more, researchers say. And this belief in the health power of expensive foods may lead people to some other surprising conclusions. For example, people in one study thought eye health was a more important issue for them when they were told about an expensive but unfamiliar food ingredient that would protect their vision. If the same ingredient was relatively cheap, people didn't think the issue it treated - eye health - was as important. "It's concerning. The findings suggest that price of food alone can impact our perceptions of what is healthy and even what health issues we should be concerned about," said Rebecca Reczek, co-author of the study and professor of marketing at The Ohio State University's Fisher College of Business. Reczek conducted the study with Kelly Haws of Vanderbilt University and Kevin Sample of the University of Georgia. Their results appear online in the Journal of Consumer Research. Reczek said she and her colleagues conducted the study to examine the lay theory that we have to pay more to eat healthfully. Lay theories are the common-sense explanations people use to understand the world around them, whether they are true or not. Messages consistent with the healthy = expensive lay theory are all around us, she said. One example is the "Whole Paycheck" nickname people have given to Whole Foods, which touts itself as "America's Healthiest Grocery Store." There are certainly categories of food where healthy is more expensive, such as some organic and gluten-free products, Reczek said. But it is not necessarily true all the time. Still, this research wasn't meant to investigate the true relationship between healthy foods and price - just people's perceptions of that relationship. The researchers conducted five related studies, all with different participants. In one, participants were given information on what they were told was a new product called "granola bites," which was given a health grade of either A- or C. They were then asked to rate how expensive the product would be. Participants who were told the health grade was A- thought the granola bites would be more expensive than did those who were told the grade was C. In a second study, the researchers found that the healthy = expensive belief operates in both directions. In this study, participants rated a breakfast cracker that they were told was more expensive as healthier than an identical cracker that cost less. But could this lay belief influence how people act? In the next experiment, a different group of people was asked to imagine that a co-worker had asked them to order lunch for them. Half the people were told the co-worker wanted a healthy lunch, while the others weren't give any instructions. On a computer screen, participants were given their choice of two different chicken wraps to choose for their co-worker, one called the Chicken Balsamic Wrap and the other called the Roasted Chicken Wrap. The ingredients were listed for both. The key was that for some participants the Chicken Balsamic Wrap was listed as more expensive, and for others the Roasted Chicken Wrap cost more. Results showed that when participants were asked to pick the healthiest option, they were much more likely to choose the more expensive chicken wrap - regardless of which one it was. "People don't just believe that healthy means more expensive - they're making choices based on that belief," Reczek said. It was the results of the next study that most intrigued Reczek. In this experiment, participants were told to imagine they were at a grocery store to buy trail mix and they were presented with four options, all at different price points. The option that the researchers were interested in was called the "Perfect Vision Mix." Some participants saw the mix touted as "Rich in Vitamin A for eye health." Others saw the line "Rich in DHA for eye health." While both Vitamin A and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) are indeed good for eye health, the researchers had previously determined that few people are familiar with DHA. Some participants saw the trail mix listed at an average price, while others saw it listed at a premium price above the other three trail mixes. Participants were then asked about their perceptions of the key ingredient in the trail mix, either Vitamin A or DHA. When the ingredient was Vitamin A, people thought it was equally important in a healthy diet, regardless of the price. But if the ingredient was DHA, participants thought it was a more important part of a healthy diet if it was in the expensive trail mix than when it was in the average-priced mix. "People are familiar with Vitamin A, so they feel they can judge its value without any price cues," Reczek said. "But people don't know much about DHA, so they go back to the lay theory that expensive must be healthier." But the healthy = expensive theory had an even more surprising effect. When participants were told DHA helped prevent macular degeneration, people thought this was a more important health issue when the trail mix with DHA was more expensive. When the DHA product was an average price, they were less concerned about macular degeneration. This effect was not seen with people who were told the trail mix had Vitamin A - again, probably because it was more familiar to the participants, Reczek said. In the final study, participants were asked to evaluate a new product that would have the brand slogan "Healthiest Protein Bar on the Planet." They were told this bar would compete against other products that averaged $2 per bar. Some participants were told this new bar would be $0.99, while others were told it would be $4. They were then given the opportunity to read reviews of the bar before they offered their own evaluation. Findings showed the participants read significantly more reviews when they were told the bar would cost only $0.99 than when it cost $4. "People just couldn't believe that the 'healthiest protein bar on the planet' would cost less than the average bar," Reczek said. "They had to read more to convince themselves this was true. They were much more willing to accept that the healthy bar would cost twice as much as average." While these results may be concerning for consumers, Reczek said there is a remedy. "We need to be aware of our expensive-equals-healthy bias and look to overcome it by searching out objective evidence," Reczek said. "It makes it easier for us when we're shopping to use this lay theory, and just assume we're getting something healthier when we pay more. But we don't have to be led astray. We can compare nutrition labels and we can do research before we go to the grocery store. We can use facts rather than our intuition."


News Article | February 15, 2017
Site: www.prweb.com

Stay Metrics, providers of an evidence-based driver engagement platform, research, and analytics that enable motor carriers to retain more of their best drivers, announces the next generation of its predictive driver turnover model. With the new Predictive 2.0 model, Stay Metrics is providing motor carriers with valuable insights on why drivers leave their companies. The model’s computer algorithms extrapolate data from the company’s full product suite, which has been integrated into a single database. To date, Stay Metrics has collected more than 5 million individual driver responses from more than 50,000 completed annual Driver Satisfaction surveys. Predictive 2.0 uses each carrier’s survey responses to correlate the factors that are causing driver dissatisfaction — home time, dispatchers, or pay among many other possibilities — with their turnover data. The Predictive 2.0 model was developed by Dr. Timothy Judge, Stay Metrics’ director of research who is the Joseph A. Alutto Chair in Leadership Effectiveness at the Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business. “The typical approach is to lump all data together and then extrapolate the overall prediction to a carrier. This would work well if all carriers were alike, but we know that they are not,” said Judge. “Our Predictive 2.0 model does often identify common denominators in terms of what attitudes predict turnover, but I am generally struck by how the results differ fundamentally across carriers. One size definitely does not fit all.” Stay Metrics delivers insights to clients from its Predictive 2.0 model, from the Driver Satisfaction survey and ongoing research on a quarterly basis through consultation sessions. “During our quarterly consultations we translate results from the model into practical strategies and prescriptions that will reduce turnover. We hold our clients accountable for acting on their data to increase driver engagement, satisfaction and to move their needle for driver retention,” said Tim Hindes, chief executive officer of Stay Metrics. About Stay Metrics The Stay Metrics driver engagement platform helps trucking companies engage, reward and keep their best drivers. Carriers see improved driver retention by using a unique custom-branded loyalty rewards program to recognize driver performance, in combination with driver feedback interviews, surveys, and related research. The platform includes a driver communication and resource hub, in addition to safety and wellness training. Stay Metrics is based at Innovation Park at Notre Dame.


News Article | April 13, 2016
Site: www.fastcompany.com

If you need help at the office, you’ll improve your odds of finding a willing coworker if you refer to the organizational chart. Researchers from Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business found that people are most likely to help colleagues that are moderately distant in status, both up and down the corporate ladder. The findings, which are published in Academy of Management Discoveries, offer a new way to think about how status affects workplace relationships, says Sarah Doyle, a doctoral student at the Fisher College of Business and co-author of the study. Previous studies have focused on the direction of the relationship, but status distance may be more important in some circumstances, she says. In the first of two experiments, undergraduate students were asked to imagine that they were part of a 15-person sales team. Participants were told that one of their group members was close to securing a large account and was running short on time; they were asked if they would be willing to provide help. Some participants were told that the person asking for help was either similar to them in status, others were told that the person had a moderate status difference, and others were told there was a larger status difference. Participants were most likely to say they would help a team member who was moderately different from them in status. The second experiment was conducted with employees of a large call center. Each employee received a detailed sales report and could compare their own results to other members of their team. While they worked separately in cubicles, they were encouraged to help each other and answer questions. Researchers found that workers were most helpful to teammates who had a moderate distance in sales. "People who are closest to you in status pose the greatest threat," says Doyle. "If you help these individuals perform better or do better, they could potentially surpass you or widen the gap between your positions, making it more difficult for you to pass them. On the other side, people who are far above or below you in status could require a lot more time and effort to help, which could hurt your own job performance." The sweet spot is people who are far enough away where cooperative work is possible and the potential threat is low, says Doyle. "Those colleagues who are moderately distant don't pose much of a threat and offer the best opportunity for workers to demonstrate their willingness to cooperate with their teammates," she says. The results of the study don't suggest that most people regularly refuse requests for assistance from their coworkers, said Robert Lount, OSU associate professor of management and human resources and co-author of the study. "We found that people are generally willing to lend a hand. It is not a story of withholding assistance. It is more about who are you most likely to go out of your way to help," he writes. If you are assigning people to train others or to work in pairs, Doyle says the study findings could be helpful. "It’s important to recognize where the pairs fall in the hierarchy," she says. "You want to group people who aren’t too close in status, managing the distance between people so it encourages them to work together." For example, avoid assigning the most recently hired employee to train the newcomer. "If that relative newcomer is worried about his or her status in the organization, they may be less than helpful with this new person who could surpass them," writes Lount. "Someone who is moderately successful, but not the top performer on the team, might be the most willing to help." The study could also be helpful to organizations that view hierarchy as a negative, says Doyle. "A lot of companies are moving to a flatter structure, but this research speaks to the idea that maybe hierarchy is not a black and white concept," she says. "The study suggests that hierarchy might be more complex than assumed. Managers have to consider how status distance plays a role in how well their corporate hierarchies work."


News Article | March 30, 2016
Site: www.fastcompany.com

Say that three of your coworkers need help with different projects. One of them is a well-respected veteran in another department, another is the assistant manager of a team that works closely with yours now and then, and the third is someone on your own team who was hired around the same time as you and works in the same role. Which one do you help? According to researchers at Ohio State University, you're more likely to lend a hand to the second of the three. A recent study found that our inclination to collaborate with colleagues doesn't just come down to who we happen to like or whose role is most senior to our own. Instead, it's all about a subtler, more subjective quality the researchers call "status"—which is how we weigh both of those factors alongside interpersonal politics and social cues, like relative tenure on the job and even how we perceive our own position in the workplace. Researchers found that we're more likely to assist coworkers who we believe sit at a "moderate" remove from our own status in our organization. Subconsciously, we feel that's safest: It lets us show our own value as a team player without putting our own place in the unofficial company hierarchy at risk. But colleagues with much greater, much less, or too similar a status to our own aren't as likely to receive our help. The study looked at these comparative status relationships and identified this sweet spot; "moderate status distance" basically refers to the coworkers who we feel are neither too similar nor too dissimilar from us. What's useful about this definition is that it goes beyond the "org chart" on the one hand and strictly social relationships on the other, anchoring both to our sense of self at work. For example, someone hired around the same time as you but working in a different department, possibly at a slightly higher or slightly lower level, would have a "moderately" different status than yours. Sarah Doyle, a PhD student at OSU’s Fisher College of Business, led two related studies to understand how the nuances of status dictate collaborative behavior. The first was a thought experiment that involved asking more than 260 college undergraduates to imagine they were part of large work groups attempting to make sales for their organization. Participants were told that someone else in their group was close to making a big sale, and researchers varied the description of that person to reflect the spectrum of status similarities (similar, very dissimilar, or neither). When asked if they would help the coworker, participants were most likely to say they would if the coworker’s status was moderately different from their own. That led Doyle and her colleagues to test that finding in the field. They went to a large customer call center, where employees were highly aware of their individual statuses relative to their coworkers’, thanks to monthly reports that ranked employees by the sales they made. The call center also encouraged employees to help one another out, and researchers observed that employees would often ask coworkers for help answering questions. The researchers then asked 170 of the employees to list which of their coworkers came to them most often for help and which they themselves relied on for support. Here, too, it turned out that employees were most helpful to the coworkers who ranked at moderate status distances from their own with respect to the center’s sale rankings. This would seem to suggest a sprawling web of unspoken alliances, all driven by self-interest. But the study's co-author Robert Lount clarifies on OSU's website that it isn't quite that Machiavellian. "People are generally willing to lend a hand. It is not a story of withholding assistance. It is more about who are you most likely to go out of your way to help." For example, if you know one of your coworkers has a full schedule and just got assigned another big project, your willingness to freely offer your help might subconsciously hinge on that person’s status relative to your own. It doesn't necessarily mean you'll intentionally leave someone high and dry, believing it'll benefit you. But as Doyle points out, this finding may shed light on how organizational hierarchies alternately help and hinder collaboration. "Someone near you in status poses more of a threat," she suggests. "The help you provide could help them pass you in status, or make it more difficult for you to pass them." If assisting someone close in status seems risky, then the reason we're no less likely to help out someone of a significantly different status may come down to simple efficiency: If you try to help a colleague who's either far below or far above your own position, it's hard to see what you'll gain. You risk taking extra time and effort to lend a hand, which your other coworkers or, worse, your boss may consider a waste of time. In a certain light, at least, this might indeed be rooted in competition as well. After all, if your fellow team members or managers see you busy helping someone far afield in the company, you may look like less of a team player, which could damage your own standing closer to home, where it counts. Purposefully or otherwise, competition is an ingrained part of our working lives—and often that's a good thing. One way to channel it into productive uses may be to let employees grow horizontally, by learning new skills that complement their primary career objectives even if they don't directly advance them. That way, each employee gets a chance to pursue what interests them individually, minimizing competition from team members trying to one-up each other on the exact same turf. Instead, everyone brings their own skills to the table, and your coworkers’ successes don’t mean your inevitable failure. Not only can everyone raise their own status simultaneously, the differentiation that it creates between one employee and the next helps ensure they're neither too close nor too far apart—but just right for pitching in. William Craig is the founder and president of WebpageFX. He writes about company culture and entrepreneurship for Forbes and Fortune.


News Article | March 3, 2017
Site: www.prweb.com

The president of the Bertrand Russell Society, Dr. Timothy Madigan, has written Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin on behalf of the Society to encourage them to work together towards eliminating nuclear weapons. Madigan, a philosophy professor at Saint John Fisher College in Rochester, New York, tells both presidents that his organization supports the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s recent plea and “open letter” to the White House and Kremlin regarding nuclear weapons, wherein it asks both presidents to “commence negotiations to reduce the dangers of a nuclear war, by mistake or malice, and immediately commit your respective governments to the realizable objective of a nuclear weapons-free world.” The letter was signed by many scholars and luminaries, including members of the Bertrand Russell Society such as Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky. Madigan also sent the leaders a copy of what might have been Bertrand Russell’s shortest book, History of the World in Epitome, which in only a couple of spare drawings and 21 words summarizes human folly throughout history and its ultimate doom in the event of a nuclear holocaust. Russell published the little book on his 90th birthday in 1962, only a few months before the Cuban Missile Crisis, a time when the world stood at the precipice of nuclear catastrophe, and, as we now know, a horror that was only barely averted. Russell, a renowned mathematician, philosopher, and Nobel Prize laureate, worked tirelessly to reduce the nuclear threat during the Cold War until his death in 1970 at age of 98. Russell and the great physicist, Albert Einstein, issued their famous Russell–Einstein Manifesto in 1955 to highlight the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, calling for world leaders to seek peaceful resolutions to international conflict. The Bertrand Russell Society is an international association of scholars and admirers of Russell, and it seeks to promote the study and furtherance of his ideas and ideals. Information about the Society may be found at its website http://bertrandrussell.org/ and individuals may apply for membership at http://form.jotform.us/form/31117633909151

Loading Fisher College collaborators
Loading Fisher College collaborators