Scenario: Modeling the likelihood of an online shopper making a purchase In this scenario, we will be examining the likelihood of an online shopper making a purchase, given the current state of their browsing behavior. We will define State A as the state in which the shopper is actively browsing products, and State B as the state in which the shopper has added items to their cart and is in the process of making a purchase. State-transition diagram: css A B +——-+ +——-+ A | | 0.2 | | | +—->+ | | | | | +——-+ +——-+ 0.8 0.8 The probabilities associated with each of the four possible transitions are as follows: P(A to A) = 0.8: This represents the probability that a shopper will continue browsing products after viewing a product page, without adding any items to their cart. P(A to B) = 0.2: This represents the probability that a shopper will add items to their cart and move to the purchase state, after viewing a product page. P(B to A) = 0.8: This represents the probability that a shopper will abandon their cart and return to browsing products, after entering the purchase state. P(B to B) = 0.2: This represents the probability that a shopper will complete their purchase and remain in the purchase state, after entering it. Initial distribution vector: We can make a hypothetical estimate that initially, 70% of online shoppers are in the browsing state (State A), and 30% of them are in the purchasing state (State B). Thus, our initial distribution vector, v, can be represented as a 2×1 matrix: css v = [0.7, 0.3]’ Note that the sum of the elements in this vector is equal to 1, as it should be for any probability vector.|Essay pro

Martha Rinaldi: Should She Stay or Should She Go?

1. Psychological Contract: Martha Rinaldi had a psychological contract with Potomac Waters, a company she joined as a marketing manager. Her expectations were to work in an environment where she could be creative, have autonomy, and be fairly compensated. She was also promised a flexible work schedule, which would enable her to manage her family responsibilities. However, after a few years, the company culture changed, and her expectations were no longer met. The company became more bureaucratic, and she was given more administrative work and less autonomy. She also found out that her salary was lower than her male peers who had similar positions. These changes violated her psychological contract, leading to feelings of resentment, anger, and a lack of commitment to the company. This violation also had a significant impact on her motivation and job satisfaction (Robbins and Judge, 2019).
2. Motivation Theory: Martha’s behavior can be explained using Herzberg’s two-factor theory. According to this theory, job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are two independent factors. Hygiene factors, such as salary and working conditions, can prevent dissatisfaction, but they do not motivate employees. Motivational factors, such as recognition, autonomy, and achievement, lead to job satisfaction (Robbins and Judge, 2019). Martha was dissatisfied with her salary and working conditions, which are hygiene factors. However, the lack of autonomy and recognition for her work were motivational factors that contributed to her dissatisfaction.
3. Martha’s Alternatives: Martha could have taken several actions to address her concerns. Firstly, she could have had an open and honest conversation with her supervisor about her concerns. She could have asked for more challenging work, a salary increase, or a flexible work schedule. However, she may have been held back by her fear of confrontation, lack of assertiveness, and the belief that her concerns would not be addressed. Secondly, she could have sought support from her colleagues, family, or friends to help her navigate the situation. Finally, she could have explored other job opportunities to find a better fit for her skills and expectations.
4. Should Martha Stay or Go? Martha should consider several factors before deciding whether to stay or leave the company. Firstly, she should assess whether her concerns can be addressed within the company. She can initiate a conversation with her supervisor or HR department to discuss her salary, workload, and flexibility. If the company is willing to negotiate, she can stay and work towards improving her work environment. Secondly, she should assess her alternatives, such as finding a new job or starting her own business. She should consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of each alternative. Finally, she should assess her personal and professional goals and values to ensure that her decision aligns with them. If Martha decides to leave, she should be aware of the potential consequences, such as the impact on her career, finances, and family. She should also ensure that she has a clear plan for her future and take steps to mitigate any risks.

Conclusion: Martha Rinaldi had a psychological contract with Potomac Waters that was violated due to changes in the company culture. Her behavior can be explained using Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Martha could have taken several actions to address her concerns, such as having an open conversation with her supervisor or seeking support from her colleagues. Finally, Martha should assess her alternatives and personal goals before making a decision to stay or leave the company.