Can you put together the 2 parts of the paper and update based on .docx

Can you put together the 2 parts of the paper and update based
on the feedback below. There shouldn’t be much editing but just
some adjustments to the final paper with all the parts in one
paper.
Feedback to Learner6/15/17 11:29 PM
Good job on the paper. My dissertation was on workplace
bullying and often the leadership style associated with bullying
is the authoritative/coercive style. The authoritative/coercive
management philosophy uses fear as a prime motivator (Singh,
2009). This philosophy convinces subordinates that a loss of
privileges, rewards, promotion, credit, or wage will occur if
they fail to comply (Singh, 2009).
However, Laissez-faire managers provide inactivity in
policing bullying tactics and therefore become passive
accomplices. Laissez-faire managers inadvertently support
bullying through unresponsiveness in correcting the behavior
(Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010). A study by Skogstad,
Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, and Hetland (2007) supported the
notion that a laissez-faire leadership style provides fertile
ground for bullying between coworkers though the creation of a
social climate characterized by high levels of interpersonal
conflicts and role stress. Furthermore, the study by Skogstad et
al. (2007) indicated that laissez-faire leadership might be more
of a counterproductive leadership style than a zero type of
leadership style, associated with a stressful environment
characterized by high levels of role stress and interpersonal
conflicts.
Namie, G., & Lutgen-Sandvik, P. E. (2010). Active and passive
accomplices: The communal
character of workplace bullying. International Journal of
Communication 4(2010), 343-373.
Singh, A. (2009). Organizational power in
perspective. Leadership & Management In
Engineering, 9(4), 165-176. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-

5630.0000018.
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M., &
Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of
laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 12(1), 80-92.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80.
Dr. Rick
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
Source: Unknown
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text

slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text

slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
slevin
Typewritten Text
ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING EDUCATION American Accounting
Association
Vol. 30, No. 1 DOI: 10.2308/iace-50949
2015
pp. 35–46
Using the Codification to Research a Complex
Accounting Issue: The Case of Goodwill
Impairment at Jackson Enterprises
Casey J. McNellis, Ronald F. Premuroso, and Robert E. Houmes
ABSTRACT: This case is designed to help students develop
research skills using the

Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) Accounting
Standards Codification
(Codification or ASC). The case also helps develop students’
abilities to analyze and
recommend alternatives for a complex accounting issue,
goodwill impairment, which is
very relevant in today’s business world. This case can be used
in an undergraduate or
graduate accounting class, either in groups of students or as an
individual student
project.
Keywords: FASB Codification; goodwill impairment.
CASE
Goodwill Impairment—Background Summary
T
he requirements for assessing the valuation of goodwill
subsequent to acquisition have
significantly changed over the past 15 years, most recently with
the option to perform
qualitative assessments prior to the commencement of the two-
step impairment test and the
amortization alternative now available for private companies.
Furthermore, the valuation of
goodwill requires significant judgment, and thus the

authoritative literature is accompanied by
significant implementation guidance. The standards surrounding
goodwill and the following case
provide students the opportunity to (1) obtain a further
understanding of the related concepts
learned from textbooks, (2) sharpen their professional research
skills, and (3) apply judgment in a
relevant scenario.
Casey J. McNellis is an Assistant Professor and Ronald F.
Premuroso is an Associate Professor, both at the
University of Montana, and Robert E. Houmes is an Associate
Professor at Jacksonville University.
We thank the editor, associate editor, and two anonymous
reviewers for their comments and suggestions on previous
versions of this manuscript. We also thank Shandell VanDonsel,
a Master’s of Accountancy candidate at the University
of Montana, for her help and assistance in the preparation of
this manuscript. The experiment using human subjects
described in this manuscript was approved by the Institutional
Review Board for the Use of Human Subjects in Research
at the respective University.
Published Online: October 2014
35
Company Overview—Jackson Enterprises

Jackson Enterprises (JE), a publicly traded company, produces
and sells products in several
sectors of the U.S. economy. One of JE’s major segments,
which meets the Financial Accounting
Standards Board (FASB) definition of an operating segment, is
its semiconductor business
comprised of two subsidiary companies: Dynamic Technologies
(80 percent owned and publicly
traded), and ZD Systems (wholly owned). Dynamic
Technologies (hereafter, Dynamic) is
headquartered in the northeastern section of the U.S. and
specializes in the manufacture of
electronic sensors and indicators used on automated production
systems in North America, Europe,
and Asia. In 2011, JE acquired 80 percent of Dynamic’s
common stock, a transaction resulting in
$150 million of recognized goodwill. ZD Systems (hereafter,
ZD), a company headquartered in the
mid-western section of the U.S., manufactures sensor-type
devices used solely for agricultural
machines and systems in the U.S. At the time of the acquisition
of ZD in early 2006, JE recorded
$50 million of goodwill. While the two subsidiaries are
classified within the same segment for

segment reporting purposes, they are distinct entities and have
no intercompany transactions.
Industry Information—Dynamic
The production of the electronic sensors and indicators sold by
Dynamic and its competitors
occurs in a highly structured, semi-automated environment.
Accordingly, the industry has
established consistent guidelines and best practices as they
relate to manufacturing. Consistent with
this high level of automation, a large labor union actively
represents the employees of almost every
company in the industry through a collective bargaining
process. Recently, the industry experienced
an influx of technological advancements to its standard
manufacturing process. Such innovations
allow the companies to better track raw materials throughout
every production run, ultimately
reducing the waste normally present in the manufacturing
process. The technology is easily
accessible to existing and potential industry participants; as a
result, the number of competitors
increased by 35 percent in the past year.
While those within the industry view the new manufacturing
advancements positively, the

related practices used by the companies have faced scrutiny
recently due to their extensive
environmental and workplace impacts. The average
manufacturing plant in the industry emits
carbon at higher rates than some automobile manufacturers. As
a result, many companies have been
subject to the close eye of federal and state environmental
agencies. Both regulators and union
representatives have claimed that pollution poses health hazards
to Dynamic’s workforce.
Organizational Information—Dynamic
Dynamic’s strategic initiatives begin with the seven executives
making up its senior
management team. Overall, the company employs approximately
1,500 employees, 102 of which
staff the accounting department. Recently, the employees of
Dynamic successfully secured a
collective bargaining agreement with the backing of the major
union within the industry. The
agreement becomes effective in the first quarter of calendar
2015.
Dynamic’s production process for sensors and indicators fits the
standards and best practices of

the industry. The company uses a mostly automated assembly
line, which is staffed by a number of
machine operators, quality control technicians, and supervisors.
These employees receive extensive
training through industry workshops, as well as industry
training booklets. The production
department performs two daily production runs six days a week
for 50 weeks during each year.
Dynamic has been able to keep material costs low relative to its
competitors due to some negotiated
short-term purchase commitments with suppliers in the past
three years. During the current year, the
typical cost of producing a sensor was approximately $800, and
the company consistently applies a
36 McNellis, Premuroso, and Houmes
Issues in Accounting Education
Volume 30, No. 1, 2015
25 percent markup on cost in establishing the sales price.
Dynamic sells its finished sensors and
indicators through a number of domestic and international
distributors. The domestic distributors
also engage in the distribution of replacement parts for
computers and high-end medical equipment.

To address the government agencies’ recent scrutiny regarding
industry practices pertaining to
environment and workplace issues, Dynamic’s manufacturing
personnel recently developed plans
to institute compliance and reporting systems within the
manufacturing department. The system
involves the addition of employees whom will administer self-
audits of the company’s emissions,
investigate working conditions, and design practices to better
track the company’s carbon emissions
and activities aimed at enhancing workplace safety. No other
companies in the industry have
created such a monitoring mechanism. Dynamic’s management
feels that such a system is
necessary as part of its long-term objectives in order to respond
to recent and future increases in
regulatory activity.
Dynamic has experienced stable growth and profitability since
its acquisition by JE. In 2014,
the company’s gross margin held steady at approximately 20
percent, three percentage points above
the industry average for the year. In August 2014, JE executives
ordered appraisals of all of its

holdings as part of a strategic management initiative. The
independent appraisal company valued
Dynamic’s business at $830 million, based upon earnings
multiples derived in conjunction with
analysis of other companies within Dynamic’s industry. As of
December 31, 2014, Dynamic had
30,000,000 shares of common stock issued and outstanding. The
per share price of Dynamic’s
common stock gradually decreased during 2014 from $27/share
on January 1, 2014 to $23/share on
December 31, 2014. A condensed summary of balance sheet
information (in millions) for Dynamic
as of December 31, 2014 is presented below.
Dynamic Technologies
Current Assets $2,555
Non-Current Assets (including Goodwill) $3,714
Current Liabilities $2,161
Non-Current Liabilities $3,335
Industry Information—ZD
ZD operates in a loosely organized industry that includes only a
few competitors. Each
company’s product contains technology distinctly different from

that of the competition and thus a
significant amount of variability exists between the
manufacturing processes of competitors in the
industry. As a result, the companies share very little
information. Differences within the industry,
including the uniqueness of the technologies employed, have
made it virtually impossible for new
potential competitors to carve a niche within this industry
sector. In fact, in the past six years, the
number of competitors has remained constant. Because of the
role this industry plays in enhancing
agricultural innovation and cultivation, federal and state
government leaders have taken an interest
in creating a business-friendly atmosphere for companies in this
industry committed to enhancing
the competitive advantage of our nation’s farmers and ranchers.
Organizational Information—ZD
ZD is considered among customers and other industry
participants as the driver of agricultural
innovation, being the foremost competitor in the industry.
Because of ZD’s established reputation,
the company’s market share is dominant in this industry. JE’s
executives consider ZD as one of its

best enterprises. ZD stands apart from its competitors because
of the state-of-the-art manufacturing
process management developed over the course of several years.
The production system for the
sensor devices involves specialized welding, fusing, assembly,
and quality control. ZD managers
Using the Codification to Research a Complex Accounting Issue
37
Volume 30, No. 1, 2015
have worked diligently to develop a patent for the company’s
unique manufacturing process and
methodology. As of December 31, 2014, the patent application
was pending approval, but
management remains optimistic the application will ultimately
be approved by the United States
Patent Office.
In addition, during the past two years, company scientists
advanced some technology and
created protocols substantially reducing the usage of precious
metals and hazardous materials,
allowing production operators to complete the welding and
fusing of the materials at less-extreme

machine temperatures. As a result, the company has reduced its
utility costs by 15 percent each year
for the past two years, pushing the company’s gross profit
margin to 35 percent. Due to these utility
cost improvements, ZD recently became eligible for a state-
administered manufacturer energy
savings incentive subsidy. This improvement in energy
efficiency also caught the eye of
environmental and sustainable business organizations, and the
company recently won an industry
award for its sustainable business practices.
The company produces one batch of sensors each weekday
during 46 weeks of the calendar
year. During 2014, the average cost of one sensor was $1,495
marked up by 53.85 percent
1
in the
market. ZD runs an in-house distribution system, working
directly with agricultural companies, as
well as a few sizable farms/ranches to fill customer orders.
ZD employs 1,200 individuals, including 12 members in
executive management positions. The
accounting and finance department is staffed with 86

employees. In general, management maintains
a very good relationship with most of its individual employees,
several of whom speak very highly
of the family-like atmosphere surrounding the company’s
operations. As a result, employee
turnover is minimal at ZD.
During the round of August 2014 independent appraisals, ZD
was valued at $1.1 billion, a
figure derived by using the same valuation methodology applied
to JE’s other subsidiaries,
including Dynamic. A condensed summary of balance sheet
information (in millions) for ZD as of
December 31, 2014 is presented below.
ZD Systems
Current Assets $3,000
Non-Current Assets (including Goodwill) $1,346
Current Liabilities $1,456
Non-Current Liabilities $1,960
Case Requirements
Financial reporting personnel at JE are in the process of
completing year-end activities,

including necessary adjusting entries to the consolidated
financial statements. While JE has not
previously believed it necessary to adjust its recognized
goodwill from the Dynamic and ZD
acquisitions, the valuation of goodwill is, nonetheless, a
prominent concern in the closing process.
Assume you are asked to research the financial statement issues
surrounding the goodwill recorded
for the Dynamic and ZD subsidiaries. Please respond to the
following questions/statements. Do not
cite your course textbook or any other textbook, as textbooks
are not authoritative guidance with
regards to accounting research. You should turn in your answers
to all of the requirements below.
1. Identify and cite the relevant topics/subtopics from the FASB
Accounting Standards
Codification for this case.
1
Average cost is $1,495; times 1.5385 equals a selling price of
$2,300. The $2,300 unit selling price less $1,495 unit
cost equals a gross margin of $805, which is 35 percent of
selling price.
38 McNellis, Premuroso, and Houmes
Volume 30, No. 1, 2015

2. Identify the specific accounting issue that you believe needs
to be initially addressed for
JE’s consideration of goodwill with regards to both Dynamic
and ZD.
3. What does the qualitative evidence from the case indicate
about whether JE should perform
the two-step impairment test? In your response, identify specific
factors discussed in the
Codification and relate them to the information provided to you
in the case.
4. Beyond the assessment of qualitative factors, what other
evidence should be considered for
the purposes of the analysis? What does this information
suggest? With respect to Dynamic,
what do you think is the most appropriate fair value amount to
use in assessing the fair value
of this reporting unit? Explain. Why is this important?
5. Based upon the information provided above, should Dynamic
and ZD be combined or
separated for the purposes of the goodwill analysis? Explain.
Why is this important?
6. Based upon your initial analysis, do you think the $200
million goodwill balance (i.e., the

$150 million for Dynamic and the $50 million for ZD) is the
appropriate valuation for
goodwill on the December 31, 2014 balance sheet of JE?
7. Prepare a memo detailing the issues involved, the judgments
you made in connection with
the authoritative literature, and your recommendation for the
direction of the goodwill
valuation as it relates to Dynamic and ZD (i.e., does the
evidence suggest further action is
required in determining the appropriate valuation of goodwill?
If so, what steps need to be
taken?).
Using the Codification to Research a Complex Accounting Issue
39
Volume 30, No. 1, 2015
Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 1
2

Milestone II Paper: The GM Culture Crisis
OL-342
Introduction
According to an independent investigation released by Volukas,
the crisis at the General Motors (GM) involving ignition switch
recall had led to at least thirteen deaths. In this live case study;
one can take notice of a sad culture crisis which is a dominant
force in the existence of an organization (Kuppler, 2014). This
paper seeks to analyze the case scenario at GM by focusing on
the leadership style, the shift from the approach and any other
elements of culture that influence the change throughout the
course of the case study. The final aspect of the paper will
connect the in-depth analysis to the different insights and a
conclusion.
Evaluating the Leadership Theory
Leadership Style: The leadership style used at GM is the
laissez-faire where team members were given a lot of freedom
to do their work and set their deadlines. This autonomy allowed
the employees to work under their terms thus affecting
performance and response to issues that arose. An example is
where the top leadership received conflicting information

regarding the ignition switch crisis since they lacked control
over their staff and the frequency of reporting. However, the
leadership style shifts after the management realize the need for
accountability and dealing with the level of incompetence
indicated in the report. This change was necessary for ensuring
that any form of toxic behavior that conflicted with the values
of the company was done away with (Mind Tools, 2017).
Characteristics and decisions of management: Most managerial
decisions entail risk, conflict, and uncertainty while lacking
structure. However, these features are not evident in the
decisions made by the CEO, Mary Barra whose action points
exhibit certainty and structure regarding programmability
(Kuppler, 2014). In this case, the decisions reflected accuracy
and comprehensive information about the state of affairs at the
company as well as a well-articulated structure towards reforms
(Castro,2015).
The internal and external influences: The internal environment
refers to factors within the organization that impacts the
leadership approach and success of its operations. According to
the case study, the internal influences that caused the shift
include the need to increase the strengths of employees
regarding motivation and talent. This element involved
improving the safety program and quality of performance
through the appointment of a responsible safety leader. On the
other hand, external influences consist of some factors outside
the organization that the management has not much control over
(Kuppler, 2014). The most influential external factor that
influenced the shift in leadership style is the legal and ethical
element that compelled the organization to abide by the
stipulated business laws and ethical standards regarding
employee and customer safety.
The relationship between a leadership style and the decision-
making process: Within the case, there was a shift from the
laissez-faire form of leadership to the transformational
leadership style. The outcome was a more emotionally
intelligent, self-aware, humble and accountable form of

leadership that realized the challenges facing the company, what
action to take and how to respond to the society’s scrutiny
(Mind Tools, 2017). To achieve this change, the management
engaged in a decision-making process that involved identifying
problems, seeking the necessary information, brainstorming
solutions, choosing an alternative, implementing the plan and
evaluating the results.
Assessing Organization Culture
The internal culture within the organization: The culture at GM
represents a way of life where people and systems work against
each other hence limiting performance and quality of services
offered. Job satisfaction at GM is at a minimum with most
employees complaining about poor working conditions,
unreliable supervisors, and an unfair reward system. Regarding
politics, power, and authority, the organization’s culture failed
to allow the elements to work inter-dependently with employees
and management failing to adhere to workplace rules and ethical
guidelines (Kuppler, 2014).
Examples from the case study: GM’s culture exhibits various
problems that affected the overall performance of the
organization. Examples included the reluctance to escalate
issues, the existence of the GM salute in which members
avoided responsibility by crossing their arms and shifting the
task to someone else, and the GM Nod. The GM Nod
phenomenon involved employees nodding in agreement to all
proposed plans of action but had no intention of following the
plan to completion.
Insights and Conclusions
Leadership style and internal culture: The original leadership
style used in the case study is the laissez-faire. This autonomy
allowed the employees to work under their terms thus
complimenting the sad internal culture at the organization
(Kuppler, 2014). The relationship entailed people and systems
interacting in a way that contradicts with the achievement of the
desired goals and objectives.
Influence on changes in leadership style: According to the case,

the organization underwent a shift from the laissez-faire type of
leadership to the transformational leadership. This shift entailed
moving from an independent management to a more progressive
leadership where the leaders acknowledged the importance of
accountability and self-awareness.
The influence of leadership styles and internal culture on the
behavior of the employees: the transformational leadership style
adopted after the report enabled the leaders to inspire
employees since they expected the best from them while holding
themselves accountable for the outcomes. This transformation
influenced the attitude of the team member to improve
productivity and engagement through the setting of clear goals
such as a safety program. On the other hand, the new cultural
approach provided the leadership as well as employees with the
opportunity to build trust and transparency required to unite the
entire workforce to the benefit of their customers.
References
Castro, N., (2015) “Characteristics for Managerial Decisions”.
Retrieved from https://prezi.com/fcmmqw86ytxi/characteristics-

of-managerial-decisions/?webgl=0
Kuppler, T., (2014) “The GM Culture Crisis: What Leaders
Must Learn From This Culture Case Study”. Retrieved from
http://switchandshift.com/the-gm-culture-crisis
Mind Tools, (2017) “Leadership Styles: Choosing the Right
Approach for the Situation”. MindTools.com. Retrieved from
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_84.html
Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR 1
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 2
OL-342
Introduction
The organization discussed in the case study is General Motors
(Kuppler, 2014). This is one of the largest automotive
companies in the United States. In the recent past, the company
has not been very kingly in their manner of execution. The
latest and biggest scandal so far has been the ignition switch
recall. This is the main issue discussed in the article. The
company was forced to recall over 12 million cars in 2014. The
faulty ignition switches used by the company in certain models
of their cars were the cause of more than 13 deaths. In the

article, the company is painted as one undergoing a culture
crisis. This is because the faulty parts have been used in models
for over a decade now and the recall was done too late.
Strengths and weaknesses
For many years, General Motors has been a giant in the
automotive industry. Before filing for bankruptcy back in 2009,
the company had the highest recorded sales even higher that
Toyota. General Motors has however been run in a bureaucratic
manner that has led to the fall of a formerly great company.
Among the weaknesses cited are two cultures known as the GM
nod where members of management listen and nod when
assigned to perform a duty but they never do it. The other was
the GM salute where members fail to take responsibility and
instead point to someone else. In other words, playing the game
(Tetzeli, 2016).
Organizational modelling
Initially, the company adopted a hybrid model with some
Autocratic and custodial features. GM workers could spot the
defective ignition switch, and through the years they raised
some concerns to their immediate superiors showing the
custodial model. However, there had been orders passed from
top management that cutting costs must be the primary
objective. Switching the ignition switches would have gone
against this objective, and therefore people in lower
management chose to ignore the problem rather than be the
bearer of bad news. This showed the autocratic model where
information only flows in one way (Shethna, 2016).
Comparison
The model engaged at GM was characteristic in the automotive
industry. Toyota, for example, has a board of 29 Japanese men
who run the whole company. Executives based in the US have
no powers to order for a recall or to stop production without the
authorization of a board member above him. Given the Just in

Time model employed by the company, the production of
defective products is very high if the people on the ground do
not have the authority to correct the mistakes immediately
(Bauer & Erdogan, 2014). This was seen a few years ago when
some Toyota models were unintentionally speeding, and this led
to the largest fine the company has paid to the regulatory
boards. The fine as of 1.2 billion dollars. Ford is another
company that was also run by a handful of executives, though
under the leadership of its previous CEO the company was able
to change its culture (Lombardo, 2017). This saw the realization
of better profit margins and better customer satisfaction. The
automotive industry is slowly switching to organizational
models that have a more holistic approach. They are trying to
create an environment where the employees feel just as
important as their managers, and this will lead to better
products and higher levels of responsibility from each member.
Impact of culture
In the past, employees were more concerned about earning a
living and being able to feed their families. This led to the
development of autocratic models where the executives barked
orders, and the employees followed them without asking any
questions. This translated into higher profits for the company as
the employees earned minimum wage. In the present day,
culture has changed, and now people seek fulfillment from their
jobs. They want to know they are making a difference in the
world and they want their ideas to be hard (Shethna, 2016). This
has phased out autocratic models and in their place, more
interactive models such as the supportive model.
GM current organizational model.
GM, just like other automotive companies has had to change
their corporate model to encourage employees to be an active
part of the company (LeBeau & Pohlman, 2014). The company
is now encouraging employees to speak up about any concerns
especially those that will boost customer safety. There is to be a

reward scheme for employees who come forward. This is to
alienate any fear that used to be associated with being the
carrier of bad news. The companies are embracing models
which are not based on making profits at the expense of quality
or safety (Tetzeli, 2016).
Motivational models
Employees have often been motivated by reward schemes
employed by management. Current organizational models still
use this method but have tweaked it by deputizing the
employees as well. When a problem arises, if the immediate
superior does not address it then the employees are tasked with
forwarding it to even higher management. This surge of power
acts as a great motivational tool for employees.
References
Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2014). Organizational Structure: The
Case of Toyota. Retrieved from Flatworld:
http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/4?e=fwk-
122425-ch14a_s01
Kuppler, T. (2014, June 8). The GM Culture Crisis: what
leaders must learn from this culture case study. Retrieved from
Switch and Shift: http://switchandshift.com/the-gm-culture-
crisis
LeBeau, P., & Pohlman, J. (2014, May 16). The corporate
culture: Behind the scenes at General Motors. Retrieved from
CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2014/05/16/the-corporate-
culture-behind-the-scenes-at-general-motors.html
Lombardo, J. (2017, February 5). Ford Motor Company’s

Organizational Culture Analysis. Retrieved from Panmore
Institute: http://panmore.com/ford-motor-company-
organizational-culture-analysis
Shethna, J. (2016, May 12). Best 5 Organizational Behavior
Model. Retrieved from EDUCBA:
https://www.educba.com/organizational-behavior-model/
Tetzeli, R. (2016, October 17). Mary Barra is remaking the
culture of GM and the company itself. Retrieved from Fast
Company: https://www.fastcompany.com/3064064/mary-barra-
is-remaking-gms-culture-and-the-company-itself

Can you put together the 2 parts of the paper and update based on .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Can you put together the 2 parts of the paper and update based on .docx

Similar to Can you put together the 2 parts of the paper and update based on .docx (20)

More from RAHUL126667

More from RAHUL126667 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Can you put together the 2 parts of the paper and update based on .docx