RSS
 

VMware Free Server Copy VM script

10 Mar

This is a follow-up post to VMware/CentOS build where I showed how I built my CentOS/VMWare server step by step.  You’ll find that you will want to copy virtual machines to duplicate them.  However, the VMware Server Console does not have a way for you to copy them.  You have to do it with the CLI and root access to the server.  In order to do this quickly, without having to remember what to do, I wrote a script.

This script will copy the VM  and change the names in the config file and the harddisk images.  I think there are probably more things that this could do and maybe more efficiently.  However, I find this script to work for me.  Maybe it will for you too.

++++
Begin Script
++++

#/bin/sh
#
# Script used to copy VMs for use
# with VMWare.
#
# Usage:
# copyvm VMTOCLONE NEWVMNAME
#
# Created 20090309
#
# Setup Variables
# Set “VMROOT” to VM directory where VMs reside
#
VMROOT=”/var/lib/vmware/Virtual Machines”
OLDVM=$1
NEWVM=$2
#
# Change to VM Root directory
#
cd “$VMROOT”
clear
echo
echo
echo Copying the VM called $OLDVM to new VM named $NEWVM.
echo This could take awhile…go get some coffee!
echo
echo
#
# Copy Contents of Original VM to New Directory
#
cp -ax $OLDVM $NEWVM
echo Done copying…
echo Fixing Image and file names
echo
echo
#
# Change to new VM’s Directory
#
cd $NEWVM
#
# Use VMWare diskmanager to rename VM’s Disk Image and fix file names
#
/usr/bin/vmware-vdiskmanager -n $OLDVM.vmdk $NEWVM.vmdk
#
# Change vmx file then edit the config
#
mv $OLDVM.vmx $NEWVM.vmx
sed -i “s/$OLDVM.vmdk/$NEWVM.vmdk/” $NEWVM.vmx
# Set Display name if old display name matched Old vmname
sed -i “s/$OLDVM/$NEWVM/” $NEWVM.vmx
echo All done,  Enjoy!
echo
echo

++++
End Script
++++

 
 

Corporate Culture: The Heart of Any Organization

08 Mar

Corporate Culture: The Heart of Any Organization

Corporate culture is prevalent in every business environment.  From the first day the organization is running, customs, traditions, and values begin to grow and propagate.  Corporate culture is defined by those traits which constitute the unique style and behaviors of a company.  The culture can include many traits like behavior, dress codes, values, philosophies, and expectations.  Often, corporate culture propagates without any intervention; however, there are many ways to attempt to create a desirable one.

The steps to create a desirable corporate culture sound easy, but in reality are not.  A company must employ a mission statement and/or statement of values.  These statements must be employed and modeled by everyone in the organization including upper management.  The values must be in step with the purpose of the company.  Employees of all levels must feel valued for their opinions and work.  All functional departments, sections and employees must communicate effectively.  Equal and fair treatment of all employees is essential.  I would also add the use of ceremonies like holiday meals and slogans that highlight values are beneficial.

There are many barriers to bringing a desirable corporate culture to maturity.  We must accept that new organizations will be easier to mold and older organizations harder because they are set in their ways.  People who will not grasp the ideals of the newly forming corporate culture will tend to shy away from becoming involved.  Another barrier is with people who resent change.  Also, any faulty business practices that go against the new values will need to be cleaned up.  Any key executives who do not embrace and model the culture desired will prove to be the worst barriers.  Corporate culture is justified by some theories, but not by Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is not adequate to justify the use of corporate cultures.  One reason relates to Utilitarianism being interested in the happiness of the many while a corporate culture may not always support the many and may even empower or defend one stakeholder.  Also, a corporate culture’s normal behavior can be predicted while determining a utilitarian action may change depending on the maximizing of overall good in relation to the action.  When the same determining factors influence an action with the only difference being the number of stakeholders on either side, the result can be different.  An example of this might be in a case of an employee who has terrible allergies to pollen.

This employee’s work site actively cultivates and is known for its beautiful honey suckle plants.  The plants are everywhere.   The extraordinary monetary cost and loss of community popularity outweigh removing them to help one employee or stakeholder.  However, imagine if 75% of the employees have the same allergies and customers who came in frequently commented on how bad their allergies bother them after an interaction on site.  I believe that would quickly warrant a change in scenery.

Two other theories of ethics are adequate for justification: Virtue ethics and Deontology.  Virtue ethics is adequate for justification because corporate culture sometimes portrays habits that empower employees to just act without going through an intensive process for determining which action to take.  Deontology is also adequate because it stresses a duty to treat everyone with respect allowing them to live their own life.  Deontology also argues that some decisions are not to be allowed even though the wellbeing is increased through their action.  These allow the code and culture to help determine the actions of employees.

Corporate culture is a vital part of every business.  It has the ability to empower and strengthen the employees of organizations.  The importance of creating or shaping a desirable culture cannot be underestimated.  While Utilitarianism cannot justify its use, Virtue ethics and Deontology can.  This strengthens the idea that employees are stakeholders.  In my opinion, the heart of any company is its culture.

+++++
Works Cited

Desjardins, Joseph. An Introduction to Business Ethics. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.

 

Stakeholder Theory: The Balancing Act

25 Feb

Stakeholder Theory: The Balancing Act

The Stakeholder Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility is now in the forefront of practiced theories in business.  In my opinion, the Stakeholder Theory has a long and complicated definition, but can be streamlined to be a principle stressing what and who really counts.  It is a theory of management that uses morals and values with the realization that all decisions affect many groups and individuals.  This theory does not give any groups including stockholders preferential treatment over others.  Many times one group may receive a benefit while another sees an expense.  The true job of this theory is to balance the relationships of all the stakeholders.

There are many problems that result in pursuing the Stakeholder Theory.  Much difficulty can arise from trying to identify stakeholders and their interests.  Also, the balancing of the relationships in view of determining actions can cause much deliberation.  Another problem revolves around the times when one group benefits at the expense of others.  This problem can cause hard feelings between groups.  Lastly, the theory does not give clear cut guidance to help managers determine decisions.

I believe there are two main benefits of stakeholder corporate social responsibility projects.  First, I believe the Stakeholder Theory can help generate trust between consumers and providers if the consideration of consumers as stakeholders is apparent.  Secondly, stockholders do not have the only claim upon managers and thus, their attention is not devoted to making money for them.  Their attention can be diverted to providing for the community in the way of jobs and products while helping the community through projects such as land-fill cleanup or alternate energy initiatives.  While the opposition by classical  corporate social responsibility people is strong, I believe these benefits are colossal.

The opposition to the Stakeholder Theory do have a strong argument.  Classical corporate social responsibility people want stockholders to have a privileged position which managers attend to first.  They believe maximizing profits should be the first goal of managers instead of losing some profits to ensure other stakeholders are provided equal benefits.  Another viewpoint is that it is preferable to find cheaper ways to produce goods even if that means the production of those goods be moved from one community to another.  The market determines this and we should get out of the way.  Finally, they believe the Stakeholder Theory is more expensive reducing profits which results in unethical treatment of the stockholder.

I believe both present good points, but I think the Stakeholder Theory ultimately wins.  The stakeholder theory’s use of consideration of all involved parties builds a more symbiotic relationship.  Employees, consumers and the community can better trust the corporation to provide jobs  and products while the corporation can expect hard work from its employees and the purchase of its good by the community.  This benefit is at the cost of the stockholder who receives less profit, but may receive more political and social influence in the community.  I believe that this symbiotic relationship tips the scale to the side of the Stakeholder Theory.  I think building a two way street between the corporation and stakeholders leads to a long relationship that helps the community and the stockholders in the long run.


Works Cited

Desjardins, Joseph.  An Introduction to Business Ethics. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.