Question 1

1) This is an obvious case of unethical communication on the employees part.

Whether employees meant to defame company or not, the use of companys
product, logos, and employee uniform or anything else associated to the
organisation gives the impression that this type of behaviour is a common
occurrence and condoned by the organisation. Such incident should not be
happening within an organization because the power of social media
communication is beyond control. As we move to new era, issues in
associating organizations through social media should be highlighted in the
employees handbook and guidelines. This step can prevent such incident to
occur and maintaining a good company image.


2) Dominos executives took a wait and see attitude because they are trying to
minimize the spreading impact of this issues to another channel of audience.
For instance, television audience may not aware of this incident if they never
use social media in the first 24 hours of this video released. In this case, more
likely to be baby boomers. We can see Dominos is taking this action
addressing to abovesaid purpose because they posted only a Youtubes
response by the companys president and no official press release.

Those days, when social media does not exist it is much easier to solve crisis.
A company just have to put out the fire, make sure everybody is safe,
determine the cause of the fire and then tell people everything. But it makes a
lot of different nowadays with the involvement of social media. If theres a
crisis or an issue happening in the social media realm, there is a segment of
the population that wants you to put on a micropone and a webcam and
describe what you are doing as you are doing it. They want you to describe on
how you are putting out the fire and that is an interesting phenomenon that
makes Dominos wait-and-see attitude a problem.





3) While it is difficult to prevent disgruntled employees from spreading negative
information and tarnishing organisations image about a company with the
involvement of social media. Few steps can be taken to inform employees
beforehand that the company is not without remorse when fraudulent and
defamatory information is involved. Employer should educate their staff
clearly about the consequences of using organisation logo, equipments, work
locations, or uniform in personal videos or other social media platform
including termination and possible civil lawsuits.
Another way to prevent this issue is by motivating employees and increase the
sense of belonging towards the organisation. Human Resource Management
plays crucial role in preventing this incident from happening.


4) Informal communication within an organization cannot be eliminated or
banned. Any policy to prevent employees from accessing social media on
company computers within an organization may not be effective. With new
technology like fast LTE smartphones and other tablet devices in the market,
Employees can now easily access Facebook or Twitter anytime anywhere
without the constraint of only using companys internet network. Social media
are not necessarily brings negative impact to an organisation, its existence can
help to promote companys image. For instance, an employee who participates
in charity work associating the organisation and posted their photos on
Facebook are complimenting towards companys corporate social
responsibility (CSR).
An organisation should form a specialise team or department to monitor social
media activities by staying aware of social media platform. This step can also
helps management to identify issues that concern employees, and in turn
possible, use them to disseminate important information.




Question 2
Organisational Performance is an analysis of a companys performance as
compared to goals and objectives. Within corporate organisations, there are three
main outcome that is being analysed, financial performance, market performance, and
shareholder value performance. Performance measurement provides many benefits to
any organization, and creates a structured approach to reviewing goals, success and
accountability. Several commercial tools are available, but internal measurements
typically give greater insight into an organisations performance.
Measuring organisational performance is important because managers need to
understand what are the factors that contribute to high organisational performance. By
measuring organisational performance also helps to promote better assets
management by designing business model that fully utilise acquired assets.
To measure organisational performance in financial performance, an
organisation can use financial ratios analysis. But one of the simple ratio that can be
explain here is the Current Ratio. Current ratio (also known as working capital
ratio) is computed by dividing the total current assets by total current liabilities of the
business. It is a popular ratio to evaluate the short-term solvency position of an
organisation. The short-term solvency means the ability of a business to pay its short-
term obligations when they become due. Short term obligations are those liabilities
that are payable with in a short period of time, usually one year. This ratios can help
to evaluate company performance and financial standings if compared to previous
years.

One of the tools can be used to measure organizational performance in market
performance is the SWOT analysis. SWOT analysis is a good starting point to
evaluate the organization's current standing and position. What makes SWOT
particularly powerful is that, with a little thought, it can helps to uncover opportunities
that are well placed to exploit. And by understanding the weaknesses of your
business, you can manage and eliminate threats that would otherwise catch you
unawares. More than this, by looking at yourself and your competitors using the
SWOT framework, you can start to craft a strategy that helps to distinguish yourself
from your competitors, so that you can compete successfully in your market. To
conduct a SWOT analysis, evaluate company's internal factor, Strengths and
Weaknesses and then the external factor, Opportunities and Threats. This measures
the organization's present state and its potential in future endeavour.

An organisation need to evaluate their shareholder or investor value in current
market situtation to strive more efficient in the future. Shareholder value performance
also helps potential prospects to decide in investing to an organisation. The price to
earnings ratio (P/E ratio) is the ratio of market price per share to earning per share.
This ratio can be used to measure shraholder value performance. The P/E ratio is a
valuation ratio of a company's current price per share compared to its earnings per
share. It is also sometimes known as earnings multiple or price multiple. Though
Price-earning ratio has several imperfections but it is still the most acceptable method
to evaluate prospective investments. It is calculated by dividing Market Value per
Share (P) to Earnings per Share (EPS). Market value of share can be taken from
stock market or online and earning per share figure can be calculated by dividing net
annual earnings to total number of shares (Net Annual Earnings/Total number of
shares). P/E ratio is a widely used ratio which helps the investors to decide whether to
buy shares of a particular company. It is calculated to estimate the appreciation in the
market value of equity shares.















Reference(s):

Hockerts K. 1999. Sustainability radar. Greener Management International 25: 2949.

Hubbard G. 2004. Strategic Management: Thinking, Analysis and Action, 2nd edn,
Ch 5. Pearson: Frenchs Forest.

Jones S, Frost G, Loftus J, van der Laan S. 2005. Sustainability Reporting: Practices,
Performance and Potential. Australian Society of Certied Practising Accountants:
Sydney.

Kaplan R, Norton D. 1992. The Balanced Scorecard. Harvard Business School.

Kaplan R, Norton D. 1996. Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy. California
Management Review 39(1): 5379.

Lefebvre E, Lefebvre L, Talbot S. 2003. Determinants and impacts of environmental
performance in SMEs. R&D Management 33(3): 263283.

Leipziger D. 2003. The Corporate Social Responsibility Code Book. Greenleaf:
Shefeld.

Litten L. 2005. Measuring and Reporting Institutional Sustainability. Association for
Institutional Research Annual Forum, San Diego.

Marshall S, Brown D. 2003. Corporate environmental reporting: whats in a metric?
Business Strategy and the Environment. 12: 87106.

Maxwell J, Rothenberg S, Briscoe F, Marcus A. 1997. Green schemes: corporate
environmental strategies and their implementation. California Management Review
39(3): 118134.

Mooraj S, Ovon D, Hostettler D. 1999. The balanced scorecard: a necessary good or
an unnecessary evil? European Management Journal17(5): 481491.

Newson M. 2002. Australias Triple Bottom Line Performance.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. http://www.pwcglobal.com [January 2013]

ODwyer B, Owen D. 2005. Assurance statement practice in environmental, social
and sustainability reporting: a critic