Posted: October 17th, 2013
Strategic map of Apple Incorporation
The strategic goals of the chosen company known as Apple Incorporation involves offering the most excellent means of individual computing, mobile phone interaction, convenient digital perspective tunes and video incidents to a wide range of consumers including scholars, residents and businesses among others. This is made possible by developing creative means including technological hardware and software and services.
However, the strategic goals of Microsoft aim at maximizing the disclosure of its products by compelling greater operations, opportunities and decisions for technological developers, business associates, competitors and clients.
This would be achieved by ensuring more disclosure in business relations, supporting data convenience, encouraging the promotion of market standards and promoting maximized engagement with customers.
SAS Company deals with business intelligence by focusing on software intended for business analysis, information warehousing and mining processes facilitated by corporations for collecting, controlling and analyzing large amount of information. The strategic goals of SAS aim at permitting businesses to evaluate information and collective insights on how to win over competitors and provide better customer service.
Strategic map of Apple, SAS and Microsoft Companies
The case in Griggs vs. Duke Power Company involved a dispute concerning employment prejudice. In the early fifties, Duke Power implemented a policy that stated how Black Americans were only permitted to work in the laboring sector, in which workers were paid the lowest amount of salaries. However, in the year 1955, the Company decided to avoid racial discrimination by opening the higher positions to employees of the black race. Although, they included requirements of undergoing an IQ assessment and having attained a high school certificate before being employed. However, it was obvious that the White race had a better chance of qualifying than the Black race given such standards.
It was also discovered there were some white employees who showed high performance in their jobs but failed to meet the requirements. The ruling of the court implied that the work requirements set by the company failed in being relevant to the contender’s capability in doing the job and hence was prejudicing against Black American workers despite it not being in the Company’s intention. The ruling referred to the statement made by the congress that assessments cannot be applied in offering grounds for justice in opportunity.
Washington vs. Davis is a case that involved two Blacks who applied for job opportunities in a police workstation known as Washington, in which they were denied. The Black applicants claimed that the police department applied employment procedures that were racially discriminative through implementing a policy in which applicants were required to qualify through a verbal assessment. The issue came in when most of the Whites were doing well as compared to Blacks.
However, the court gave a ruling against the two workers by implying that the verbal assessment did not in any way show a violation in the Due Practice Section. This is because no strong proof was established in showing that the assessments were unconnected to the employment. In addition, since the assessment was offered during federal service, the outcome would appear as being too minimal to be applied in a ruling. The main difference between the rulings of Washington vs. Davis and Griggs vs. Duke Power results from the amounted of evidence needed to prove the injustice of work discrimination. For example, while no substantial evidence was found Washington vs. Davis to prove the injustice, it was possible to find enough proof in the Griggs vs. Duke Power in proving the injustice of discriminating Black American workers.
The best form of Alternate Dispute Resolution is conciliation in which the mediator repairs broken relationships among conflicting parties by enabling them to come together and express their opinions while identifying their misperceptions. The mediator might result in being neutral to the concerns of both sides. This method of ADR is preferable because it minimizes tension and discloses opportunities of communication while facilitating extended compromise. In addition, it refurbishes both parties to a pre-dispute state, in which applying other dispute-solving mechanisms could follow.
The last option to consider when selecting the form of Alternate Dispute Resolution would be Mediated Arbitration since it combines both methods of Arbitration and Mediation, which makes it more difficult when the same mediator is chosen to facilitate both procedures. The difficulty comes in when the mediator is not allowed to use the information he used in the first procedure while dealing with second procedure. Mediated Arbitration is whereby an unbiased third representative intervenes a case until the two conflicting parties arrive at an impasse. The representative then makes the final decision following the reason of the impasse and other unsettled disputes. As a result, the conflicting sides consent earlier before the agreement deadline
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.