(BQ) Part 2 book "Understanding and managing organizational behavior" has contents: Leaders and leadership, communicating effectively in organizations, decision making and organizational learning, organizational design and structure, organizational culture and ethical behavior, organizational change and development. | Closing Case WHY MICROSOFT’S MEASUREMENT SYSTEM LED TO PROBLEMS WITH GROUP PERFORMANCE From the beginning, Microsoft organized its software engineers into small work groups and teams so that team members could cooperate, and learn from and help each other, and so speed the development of innovative software. Each team works on a subset of the thousands of programs that together make up its Windows operating system and applications software that is loaded on over 90 percent of PCs In the past, much of Microsoft’s reward system was based on team performance; employees of successful teams that quickly developed innovative software received valuable stock options and other benefits. Microsoft’s team-based reward system encouraged team members to work together intensively and cooperate to meet team goals. At the same time, the contributions of exceptional team members were recognized; these individuals received rewards such as promotion to become the managers or leaders of new teams as the company grew. This reward system resulted in a continuous series of improved Windows operating and applications software such as Windows XP, Vista, 7 and its Office and Internet Explorer suites. Back in 2006, however, Microsoft ran into serious problems with the development of Vista, its last operating system, which had been scheduled to come out in the summer of 2006. Unforeseen delays put the project six months behind schedule, however, and when it was eventually launched in 2007, many analysts blamed the delays on Microsoft’s evaluation and reward system which had become primarily based on individual performance contributions they believed was now hurting team performance. As Microsoft expanded during the 2000s (it now employs over 60,000 people), it developed a rigid performance-evaluation system that became increasingly based on evaluating each team member’s individual performance. The manager of each team was expected to rate the performance of each team member on a .
