Loading 
Bonanza Offer FLAT 20% off & $20 sign up bonus Order Now
1) Objectives:
As a premier casino resorts the Bellagio casino and resort immensely emphasizes on several critical objectives that have been proved to be most significant in acquiring the success of its business approach (Merchant et al. 2011). These business objectives are mentioned below:
2) Strategy:
In order to accomplish the objectives of the business approach, Bellagio casino and resort follows several important strategies. These strategies are discussed below:
3) Control Problems:
The major problem faced by Bellagio casino and resort is monitoring as well as supervising the sticks, legislative compliance as well as employee performance (Merchant et al. 2011).
The contingent factors of MCS choices are defined on the basis of three different factors (Uya and Kuzey 2016). These factors are environmental uncertainty, organizational strategy as well as multi-nationality. The contingent factors are defined below:
The legislation regarding hospitality industry is highly volatile
The perception of capability and nature of the dealers
The often occurred mistakes
Numerous industrial corporate strategy
Premium-quality service provision approach
Diverse culture
There are two different control costs of MCS, which are direct control costs and indirect control costs. These costs are evaluated below:
Direct control costs: The executives are highly encouraged to produce productivity from the front line employees due to excellent remuneration and rewarding policy. The harsh authoritarian monitoring of the executives indirectly affects the performance of the employees. Therefore, the company should focus on rewarding policy that would benefit the front line employees directly.
Indirect control costs: The employees must make their own decision at the time of game, otherwise they will lose the focus of result. Therefore, they must be allowed to put in their opinion. In addition as the stress reciprocally related with the performance, the hospitality setting must offer a soothing environment. Only non-financial recompensing will not motivate the employees.
1. This sentence is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization as it reaches to an inductive generalization based on inadequate evidence (Cummings 2014). It is also called hasty generalization that forces to make a hasty conclusion without taking into account all the variables. It is highly possible that recovering from cold after taking doses of Vitamin C was only a coincident. Besides, the person who made this statement just forced it based on his personal experience.
2. This illogical statement is an example of Ad Hominem argument that means “against the man” or “against the person.” The case was rejected only for the people who argued for it van (Eemeren and Grootendorst 2015). The authority who was in charge to decide whether the case is valid or not must thought that only teachers would benefit from more higher education funding.
3. This sentence will be considered as a false dilemma, which is also called as false dichotomy, bifurcation and fallacy of false choice. The sentence does not have enough information that can prove that investment A is better than investment B. Besides, only two options, which are investment A and investment B, are highlighted in the sentence. It is possible that some other alternatives are also available. That is why; highlighting just two decisions is not logical. It is important to investigate properly before choosing a better course of action.
4. This sentence will be considered as fallacy of insufficiency. In this method, arguer cites a person who is unreliable. It is true that smoking causes cancer; however, it is also possible that there were other reasons behind the lung cancer. Besides, it is also evident that not every person who smokes suffers with cancer. That is why it can be said that, this argument depends on false cause and hasty generalization.
According to Cerasoli et al. (2014), incentives motivate employees to increase their self-interests with the organization’s objectives. An activity based cost simulation was conducted in the year of 1999. The simulation was done in order to figure out how different incentives can create an impact on employees in terms of communication and creativity. This study will entirely focus to study the impact of individual contest and group incentive schemes on employee performance through a team based manufacturing task.
A team will have two to three members and they will assemble parts in simulated production process. This simulation was called as ABC simulator and each team will have the same ABC cost-driver information; however, they will work under dissimilar incentive schemes. One team will perform under a contest-type incentive and the other team will perform under a team-based incentive.
Two types of incentives are provided in the simulation that is tournament type incentive and group or team type incentive. Tournament type incentive will provide highest payment for the member who will perform at the highest level. Lowest performer will get the lowest payment. In one word, the payment is not equally distributed in tournament incentive program. On the other hand, group incentive is will allow the team members to receive equal payment based on the performance.
In this simulation, team A will work under tournament incentives which will force the team members to compete with each other in order to gain better rewards. On the other hand, members of team B will work under an atmosphere of cooperation in order to direct their attention to improve overall production performance. Besides, members of team A will have a fixed payment. For example, the highest performer will receive the same incentive, does not matter how superior his performance was then other team members. On the other hand, members in team A will have the opportunity to increase their compensation based on their plant performance.
Communication between the members: In the team A, communication between the members was poor. Most of the team members must have thought that sharing a good idea with other members might improve their performance and profitability. On the other hand, the level of communication between the members of team B was comparatively high. They knew that communicating with each other would improve their group performance and profitability.
Amount of creativity: Members of team A mostly focused to improve their individual performance and production processes. They did not try to improve overall plant performance. That is why; only individual innovations were seen in team A. On the other hand, team B members focused on obliging innovations in order to reduce consumption of resources and save time. That is why; team B could exhibit group innovation through their performances.
Revenues, profit and cost: Members of team A used high level of production methods in order to outperform other members of the team. In this way, the revenue was increased drastically. Besides, cost for work and warehouse storage were also high along with inventory holding cost. On the other hand, production was shared in team B that not only resulted better production but also consumed lesser resources and money. That is why; team B was able to achieve higher profits than team A.
Different methods of using cost information: Both the teams received the same cost information’ however, the methods of using them were different. Members of team A used the cost information only to improve their individual performances. However, members of team B used the cost information as a guide for their collaborated efforts. As a result, members of team A could reduce multi-person costs (Shields et al. 2015).
In the end, it can be concluded that incentives play a major role in employee motivation. Incentives are also important to control features such as an organization’s cost systems including profitability, creativity and cost control. The simulation precisely provided enough evidence that states group compensation is more efficient than tournament compensation.
Equifinality is one of the principles that in the open systems a given end state can be easily reached by many possible means. The principle of Equifinality states that, in the system many different ways exist that are helpful in achieving the desired state. It can be stated that this is valid for practically unlimited. Raymond and St-Pierre (2013) have stated that in all kinds of management areas, whether it is project management, planning, change management, there are multiple ways that leads to the final goal. However, Wilhelm, Zatsiorsky and Latash (2013) have stated that the definition of Equifinality is the property of allowing or having the same effect as well as the result from different events. If focus is shed on the through and in-depth research work of the previous researchers, it can be seen that theorists have often acknowledged the significance of Equifinality in the design and structure of the organization. However, in the recent days, several studies have tried to demonstrate the concept of Equifinality empirically. This particular research article has tried to expose the assumptions regarding function as well as structure that underlie contingency theory. Apart from that, this research work has argued that the control package variety is largely driven by the mean in which the concerned management responds to the functional demands. Zhou et al. (2014) have mentioned in his research paper that in case of business, Equifinality implies that the organizations might establish similar competitive advantages depending on substantially different competencies.
Responsibility centers
Responsibility centers are divided by the scope of responsibility assigned and decision making authority given to individual managers (Orlova et al. 2015).
Cost center:
A cost center is a part of an organization where managers are held responsible for the cost incurred in that section but not for revenues. In case of project based organizations, the service departments are known as cost centers. Besides, some other departments such as a region of sales or an individual sales person are also defined as a cost center (Hope and Fraser 2013). Cost centers vary in size for example small departments exist that includes a few employees. In some cases cost centers exist within cost centers.
Revenue centers
This part of a project based organization is responsible for generating sales by acquiring projects from other companies. A manager who controls revenue center does not have any control on cost centers and investment in asset. However, he can control some expenses of marketing department. The performance of a revenue center is calculated by comparing the original revenue with budgeted revenue. Calculated original marketing expenses with budgeted marketing expenses are also an important part.
Profit center
Managers of a profit center in a project based organization are held responsible for both revenue and cost. Managers of this center can make decisions that affect both costs and revenues. The main goal of a profit center is to gain profit for the organization (Dudin et al. 2015). A profit center’s performance is measured by finding out whether that center has gained its budgeted profit or not. The managers ensure project prices, marketing programs and project developing policies.
Investment centers
An investment center in a project based organization is responsible for both profits and investments. Manages of this center control revenues, expenses and decides how much amounts must be invested in the organization. The credit policies are also formulated by the managers of this center and have a direct influence on debt collection and inventory policy.
Cerasoli, C.P., Nicklin, J.M. and Ford, M.T., 2014. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), p.980.
Cummings, L., 2014. Informal fallacies as cognitive heuristics in public health reasoning. Informal Logic, 34(1), pp.1-37.
Dudin, M.N., Kucuri, G.N., Fedorova, I.J.E., Dzusova, S.S. and Namitulina, A.Z., 2015. The innovative business model canvas in the system of effective budgeting. Asian Social Science, 11(7), pp.290-296.
Hope, J. and Fraser, R., 2013. Beyond budgeting: how managers can break free from the annual performance trap. Harvard Business Press. Boston.
Orlova, L.V., Afonin, Y.A., Voronin, V.V. and Akopyan, D.A., 2015. Financial Accounting Centers: Concepts and Tools. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4).
Raymond, L. and St-Pierre, J., 2013. Strategic capability configurations for the internationalization of SMEs: A study in equifinality. International Small Business Journal, 31(1), pp.82-102.
Shields, J., Brown, M., Kaine, S., Dolle-Samuel, C., North-Samardzic, A., McLean, P., Johns, R., Robinson, J., O'Leary, P. and Plimmer, G., 2015.Managing Employee Performance & Reward: Concepts, Practices, Strategies. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Uyar, A. and Kuzey, C., 2016. Contingent Factors, Extent of Budget Use and Performance: A Structural Equation Approach. Australian Accounting Review, 26(1), pp.91-106.
van Eemeren, F.H. and Grootendorst, R., 2015. The History of the Argumentum Ad Hominem Since the Seventeenth Century. InReasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse (pp. 611-629). Springer International Publishing.
Wilhelm, L., Zatsiorsky, V.M. and Latash, M.L., 2013. Equifinality and its violations in a redundant system: multifinger accurate force production.Journal of neurophysiology, 110(8), pp.1965-1973.
Zhou, T., Solnik, S., Wu, Y.H. and Latash, M.L., 2014. Equifinality and its violations in a redundant system: control with referent configurations in a multi-joint positional task. Motor Control, 18(4), pp.405-24.
Upload your Assignment and improve Your Grade
Boost Grades
