• Identify corporate, academic, non-profit and government workplaces that are presently utilizing 3D immersive environments to meet organization development needs;
• Understand why immersive technologies were chosen and how these organizations are using the 3D environments to accomplish their goals, and
• Derive lessons and insights from this research for the purposes of designing 3D Learning Conferences and a potential 3D Organizational Dynamics Laboratory at Penn.

This paper provides a high-level business and technology summary of each platform reviewed, along with team observations about their capabilities and the challenges that we faced in our own use of each one. Later, it describes in varying detail several organizational use cases provided by vendors and key stakeholders, the benefits they realized from using 3D tools and the key learnings they acquired through their use of the immersive workspaces for organizational development and collaboration purposes. The conclusion highlights several best practices gathered from our research with both user organizations and technology vendors and proposes additional areas for further exploration.

While there are many important distinctions that must be considered to understand the similarities and differences of these concepts, gaining a complete understanding of these factors is more than can be covered in this paper. Nevertheless, the most critical classifying variable used to distinguish these concepts will be discussed in order to make their integration possible.

This variable, the recognition of purposeful behavior, will be used to develop a conceptual vision for how a combined approach can be used to research, plan, design and manage social systems…Systems in which people play the principle role.

Perhaps because they have only existed for ten years, little academic attention has focused on S ESOPs. In this paper we draw on the extensive existing employee ownership literature to describe the benefits and costs to employees, to firms and to society at large from the legislation that authorizes S ESOPs, and, where possible, we quantify these costs and benefits. We estimate that annual contributions to S ESOPs on behalf of employees total $14 billion, which represent additional compensation that would not have been paid without an ESOP. Annual gains attributable to increased job stability also save employees approximately $3 billion annually. Accumulated stakes, which are essentially forced savings and usually do not displace other savings, lead to additional annual accruals of $34 billion. Employers pay for ESOP contributions out of firm-level productivity and sales gains of $33 billion annually attributable to employee ownership. We estimate that one quarter of the annual gain, $8 billion ultimately goes to the federal treasury, which thereby also benefits from the adoption of S ESOPs.

Academic coaching programs are located in many areas within a university including within schools or departments of psychology, business, education, public policy, and human resources. A single institution may have multiple yet autonomous coaching programs or offerings. This results in separate and often inconsistent policies and standards by those who establish and deliver the programs, confusion or miscommunication by those who buy the programs, and little interaction between program managers within a single institution, as well as between institutions.

Research does confirm that individual employee-owners benefit from ESOPs. Equity comes on top of, not in place of, other compensation. Employee ownership is also associated with considerably greater employment stability and, in firms that simultaneously increase worker participation in decision making, the result is increased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, identification, motivation, and workplace participation. High profile cases accentuate potential risks through lack of diversification, but most employee-owners are less vulnerable than counterparts.

Research confirms also that employee ownership, on average, leads to increased firm productivity, profitability, and longevity. Evidence suggests that combining employee ownership with increased employee participation may generate astounding returns on investment.

Little is known, however, about management of employee owned firms and few projects even attempt to justify societal claims. Economists, managers, and financiers remain skeptical of employee ownership, and few studies directly counter their concerns. Problems associated with employee ownership go unstudied. For all the extent and appeal of employee ownership, it is on the fringe of both social consciousness and the academic literature.

Employee ownership is one of the few issues on which the political left and right can agree, and is thereby capable of attracting strong support across the US political spectrum. Recent concerns about social security solvency suggest further inducements to widening ESOPs. Given this opportunity, increased knowledge can help promote employee ownership, help ensure its wise adoption and successful implementation, and intelligently influence public policy.