Synthesis of Predictably Irrational and Who Says Elephants Cant Dance - Book Report/Review Example

Synthesis of Two Books Summary “Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?” narrates the tale of IBM’s competitive andcustom reformation. In his personal expressions, Gerstner provides a blow-by-blow report of his take over at the organization and his campaign to reestablish the leadership group and offer the labor a resurgent logic of aim. During the process, Gerstner explained a technique for the computing hero and re-enabled the ossified custom bred through the organization’s personal prosperity. The first-hand narration of a special turnaround: a new case study in controlling a disaster; an imaginative reflection on the computer firm, and the codes of leadership: Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?; equals Gerstner’s historic enterprise success. Taking readers down into the sphere of the IBM, Gerstner remembers the high-level conferences and accounts the tension-filled, no-turning-back conclusions that had to have achievement (Gerstner 16). He in addition provides his difficult-triumphed decisions concerning the essence of what enables a big organization operate. In Predictably Irrational by Ariely, he tests readers’ assumptions concerning making conclusions founded on rational imagination. Ariely defines the manners in which individuals regularly consider their surrounding on basis of their association to the rest; it is the manner that the being skull has networking. Individuals not just contrast things, however, moreover contrast matters that are simply comparable. Ariely, in addition defines the function of decoy impact or asymmetric supremacy influence, in the conclusion procedure. The decoy impact is the trend whereby customers will appear to have a particular reform in preference between two alternatives when in addition provided with a third alternative that is unevenly dominated. This impact is the “secret agent” in several conclusions. Relativity aids individuals make conclusions; however, it can moreover make them depressed (Ariely 10). Body The main and contrasting theme between the two books is the theme of decision-making. The Truth about Relativity According to the two authors, individuals constantly regard their surrounding in terms of their association to others during decision-making. Ariely describes the manner in which human mind have network and the way they influence the making of the decisions. The authors explain the way individuals not simply contrast maters; however, they contrast matters that have ease in comparison. Ariely argues that people make choices considering the one factor that will ease their decision-making and that which will lead to viable results. An example of Rome with free breakfast and without breakfast; and Paris with free breakfast remains given, where Ariely claims that several people will select the Rome with free breakfast because it remains simpler to contrast two alternatives for Rome than it is to contrast Paris and Rome (Ariely 13). According to Welch (2001), this decision-making and comparison is as well evident in Gerstner’s book as he tries to choose between the option of breaking the organization into several freestanding enterprises or operating it as a whole. Gerstner had to choose the option that will yield positive results and help him revive the IBM organization as that was the main goal. The authors argue that people have to make sure that the decisions they make in a working setting do not affect their employees, customers, associates, the government, and the other stakeholders negatively. This will enable an individual implement the decision with ease and thus achieve the main goal. As it is evident in Gerstner, he decides to initially operate with the organization as a whole and later expand it when it peaks. Thus, the two books argue that Relativity aids individuals make choices; however, the choices may make them miserable if they do not make viable choices. The decisions people make affect those within and without, and thus individuals must make decisions after considering their environment (Gerstner 24). The Fallacy of Supply and Demand Customers buy items based on worth, quality, and accessibility. Gerstner and Ariely claim that people purchase items due to their perception on the time they will remain useful to them, their degree of providing service, and the efficiency of delivering services. Ariely claims that when people buy an item at a certain price, they get used to that cost for a long time, and they will maintain loyalty to the product as long as it gives them the service they need. Likewise, in IBM, Gerstner had to decide on how to improve the quality, worth, and accessibility of the IBM products for their customers. Gerstner had to assess the quality of the products in the company and make informed decisions on the best strategies to modify the products to suit customer preferences and fetch as high market sales as possible. Thus, the theme of quality and the way it affects decision making remains evident in the two books (Gerstner 28). Cost and Efficiency It is clear from the two books that costs and efficiency match depending on the way people manage the available resources including time. In management of monetary resources, the phrase “free” does not account for nil as Ariely claims, yet it translates to converting an idle asset into extra cash. Promotions have as well consideration as free, however, Ariely claims that at the end, the promoter benefits since the products will reach large number of people and thus they remain highly bought. Subsequently, Gerstner in IBM had to identify the idle assets within the organization that can bring extra cash into the organization and help in resurgence of the company. The authors argue that administrators in an organization have to devise the best techniques for promoting and advertising for the products to make sure that they reach greater market hence improve the sales of the company. Technology advancement remains the key feature that facilitates the development progress in organizations, as Gerstner and Ariely explains in their books (Ariely 34). Being Paid vs. a Friendly Favor Ariley speaks in details concerning social values, that constitute friendly appeals with immediate payment not expected and market values; which accounts for salaries, costs, rents, cost advantages, and reimbursement remaining vital. He claims that individuals mainly feel pleasured doing tasks that they expect no pay, and provide a minor gift and people will have satisfaction. The authors claim that leaders have to work with the other administrative personnel in an organization to make sure that they bring out the best out of them for a common purpose. Like Gerstner claims, in IBM, he had to encourage the administrators to work for even extra hours without expecting any pay since it will help them achieve their goal. In addition, he had to invent several ways for appreciating those who performed well to maintain their efforts or even improve further, to review the salaries of the employees and other benefits. Moreover, review the other manufacturing costs incurred in the company to help him assess them and decide wisely. He assessed on means to reward work performance to keep the employees highly active. Gerstner had to make alliances with other companies in his line of business so that they can have the ability to transact on credit for effective operation of the company. The authors explain that leaders in any setting must establish good association with their associates so that they feel that they have recognition and are important for the development of the organization. This helps boost the image of the company hence improving on the goodwill as well (Gerstner 40). Procrastination and Self-control Self-control is the key tool used in decision-making as the two authors claim; lack of self-control leads to poor decision making which impacts greatly on one’s progress. They further claim that deadlines and penalties serve as motivators to individuals in a certain setting. Thus, people remain highly productive when they have to meet certain targets or deadlines. Gerstner, one, he had self-control and that is why he made the decision to stick with the organization as it was initially to revive it, then afterwards he can divide it when it has peaked. The decision paid off extremely well. Secondly, he had to set deadlines for the employees in various departments to enable them remain resourceful and improve the efficiency in production. Penalties had to exist as well for those who misbehaved or misused the resources of the organization. This made sure that everyone remained responsible for their actions. Furthermore, the authors say that people should not make decisions out of emotions, as this will influence their reasoning capacity. Anything that might affect anyone emotionally should remain gotten rid of when one has to make vital decisions so that the decision made remains free and viable for implementation and not centered or aroused by anyone or anything (Ariely 56). Conclusion Decision making in any setting makes the key factor for deciding the progress of that institution. Choices however, have consequences depending on the direction one takes. Individuals must make choices free from any influence whatsoever for an informed decision to remain made. The two authors argue that self-control matters most in decision-making and calls for dedication and principality. The themes discussed above that the authors spoke about affect people in their daily functioning and thus form part of the success individuals achieve generally. The authors evidently and clearly explain what people expect from their decision-making and the way they should go about the process in the most suitable way (Welch 45). Work cited Ariely, Dan. Predictably Irrational. HarperCollins, 2008. Print. Gerstner, L. V., Jr. Who says elephants cant dance? New York: Harper Business, 2002. Welch, J. Jack: Straight From The Gut. New York: Warner Publishing, 2001. Read More