Interpersonal, Group and Collective Behavior Dynamics Essay

Enron is a corporation that is cheekd with monetary instability just now continues to run on suspicious dealings including misrepresenting their true monetary position (Cohan, 2002). This is done to save the state-supported image of the confederacy hence avoiding the risk of losing investors. American International throng (AIG) is in any skid in a serious financial crisis following reasons of mismanagement (FRB, 2009). We shall make a comparison of the host dynamics and internal political relation within these two companies. The companies exhibited an element of discipline blockage.This is holding back perverse news from the earth until the last possible moment. This is usually a reflect piece with the aim of maintaining a good public image. It is however followed by lawsuits, hate mails or even death threats from unhappy investors. In Enrons case, the senior executives withheld any information ab come forward financial crisis from the public until it collapsed (Co han, 2002). AIG maintain a business as usual image in the public despite its liquidity issues (FRB, 2009).Motivation to lie or deliberately hide the truth in an organization was evident in the two companies. The somatic officeholders do not disclose the truth especially when this truth may put the play along into bankruptcy or cost them their jobs. In the case of Enron the lies were inform of hard data, lying about invoice results and a menses of earnings (Williamson, 1970). Questionable accounting practices were meant to hide huge losses that the association suffered. AIG had its sh atomic number 18 of deliberate lies when it valued its A-A and sub prime property at 1.7 twice the value used by Lehman. The issue of the dialog boxs oversight function and the business judgment rule is also fairly evident in the two companies he board of directors act as if they are entitled to rely on the honesty and rectitude of their accessorys until something wrong happens (Crag & Rebec ca, 1996) . The directors of Enron were totally unaware of the severity of the companys financial crisis until its collapse. A directors were too ignorant of the liquidity problem to the extend of supplying for a lavish retreat for themselves.The subordinate motorbuss have persuasive cheer in concealing the bad news. This is meant to avoid or delay individualized embarrassment and other associated risks such as the likelihood of a cost drop in its shares. In Enron, individual executives who decided to hide the in question(p) partnership feared erosion of status (Cohan, 2002). They felt that they needed to protect twain their self and external image. The same case was evident in AIG, where the subordinate managers saw the need for over costing their assets to redeem their image.overconfidence and optimism is displayed in the two companies by the senior executives especially in press releases. Overconfidence creates a strong image for any company in the eye of the public. Exec utives who are overconfident and optimistic are considered to be successful managers. This is because they are able to persuade and influence people even in the face of a crisis. The executives in Enron and AIG were also in the bid of making a name for themselves. Senior executives assured employees would continuously rise even in the event of financial instability in Enron.The chief executive police officer in AIG assured investors that they would still get their bonuses even as the company was being bailed out (FRB, 2009). Corporate civilisation cannot be ruled out in the management of the two companies. This refers to the norms of the company which are well cognise to the management and the subordinate employees. They supersede other business or ethical laws in case of a conflict. Cynism as a corporate close fosters the breaking of rules as a means to succeed. Ethical rules are nether enforced with the focus being to maximize lolly.The Enron and AIG were caught up in this cu lture when they faced a financial crisis. They misrepresented their debts and assets respectively in the companys sheet so as to reflect high profits and attract investors (Cohan, 2002). All this is done in total disregard for accounting ethics. Myopic information within the organization is also prevalent in the two companies. This might be due to our limited cognitive capabilities solely more so because the executives are too busy to deal with voluminous data. They prefer sifting this data and extracting only what is relevant.They may also be lacking the skill to analyze and understand the data as was the case of Enrons precedent chairman Mr. Kenneth Lay. The directors in AIG and Enron, focused on information that confirmed their prior attitudes of leading institutions in the market. They disregarded any Gram-negative information of possible collapse or liquidity issues. This is normally referred to as cognitive dissonance. It is usually difficult to change these beliefs as one is seen as a threat to the companys status quo. Ms. Watkins, an employee in Enron became such a threat by warning a senior manager of a possible collapse (Cohan, 2002).A chief executive officers proposal in AIG was ignored on the same origination (FRB, 2009). Intimidation of subordinate employees by the senior employees is prevalent in Enron but not in AIG. In Enron, investigations against Mr. Andrew a former chief financial officer and other senior officers who were involved in fraud cases did not happen since no one was confident enough to confront them (Cohan, 2002). In AIG the accounting scandal is thoroughly investigated and no one is spared including a former chairman of the board.REFERENCES Federal Reserve Bank. (2009). History and development of AIG. Retrieved May 26,2009, from http//www. federalbank. orf/ invoice/development. pdf Herbert, A. S. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. John, A. C. (2002). I didnt get along and I was only doing my job. Has corporate g overnance careened out of affirm? A case study of Enrons information myopia. Journal of course Ethics, 40 (3),275-299. Paul Z. & Janet A. (1997). The social influence of confidence in group decision making.