Saturday, March 14, 2020

Manufacturing Research Paper

Manufacturing Research Paper Introduction The main aim of the research paper is to ascertain the extent of participation, the types of alliances used and the problems faced by these firms which are basically into developing and manufacturing telecommunications, transport, information, lethal platforms, and components for the operation of these platforms for military organisations. Exposure to decreasing defence budgets of nations, global competition, and open market practices, has made the environment of the defence equipment manufacturing firms, which have constraints for technology transfers and use of popular corporate strategies due to the very nature of their business, unpredictable, uncertain, and a threat to their survival. In such a situation, strategic alliances are a good option for these firms. But given the political and commercial constraints, the best practices of the alliance formation may not be relevant to these firms. This paper looks at how these firms are practising strategic alliances. The Defence Industry Environment It appears that the issues facing the defence industry and the new emerging constraints have attracted a lot of attention of contemporary authors, but the responses to these issues and their effects are somewhat still unclear to the industry. Since the end of the cold war in early 1990s, the trend in Europe is that of declining defence expenditures, shutting down of many such defence equipment manufactures and the reduction of employees in this sector. Two other important factors that influence the sector are the decreasing control of the state in arms manufacturing and the break up of the military industrial complexes. Also, due to reduction in Russian threat, the customer base has reduced, but competition has increased. This has been highlighted by the example of the Aerospace industry, wherein only four models exist, but every contract is vital for the company’s survival. This condition has led to increasing alliances even between competitors in an attempt to prevent or rev erse poor performance. The authors have adopted Cosentino’s seven symptoms of change in the defence industry as more costly programs, cuts in military expenses, growing Asian markets, reducing government support, demand for return on investment, new competition, and demanding customer requirements. The globalisation of arms market and the diminishing national control over arms supplies has resulted in competitive disadvantages for firms which have persisted with purely national procurement and manufacturing strategies. The authors have summarised the reasons for the changes in the defence industry as declining budgets of governments, demand for greater accountability in defence procurement, growing demand for latest and best technology, declining market size, and increasing competition from global players. The authors observe that the conditions, which existed previously, have resulted in conditioning of employees of these firs to aberrant business practices. But this disadva ntage is negated by their common cultural backgrounds. Types of Strategic Alliances Strategic alliances are agreements between firms to cooperate with each other in some way for varying lengths of time. What differs is the degree of co-operation, structure and duration. Strategic alliances have gained popularity across many industries and the literature available or the studies conducted are not industry specific, but mostly cross-sectoral. There are many ways of classifying strategic alliances. They can be classified into four categories based on the nature of allying firms as pro-competitive (inter industry), non-competitive (intra industry, non competing), competitive (direct competitors), and pre-competitive (unrelated industries). They can also be classified as horizontal (between competitors), vertical (between members of supply chain), or diagonal (between firms in different industries). In any case, what is common to all these alliances is transfer of knowledge, which may or may not be equal in both directions for the allying firms. Strategic alliances inclu de collaboration, joint ventures, consortia, licensing agreements, offset agreements and essentially any form of co-operation or exchange of resources between two or more partners. Drivers of Strategic Alliance Formation The drivers of strategic alliance formation include global economic downturns, new economic opportunities, the need for survival within the firm and the collective fear of risk inherent in business. Also, the process of selection of the right type of alliance is a mix of selecting suitable ones and eliminating unsuitable ones. The process is also dependent on the dominant drivers during the alliance formation and the tailoring of the type of alliance is done to suit the needs and goals of the allying partners. The primary driver of strategic alliances seems to be globalisation, or the advent of global competition, due to which such alliances are observed commonly across various industries like automobile, pharmaceutical, aerospace, etc on a global level. What needs to be examined is whether firms are adopting this as defensive business strategy for survival, or proactive strategy to reduce competition. Motives of Strategic Alliance Formation The motives pertain more to specific sectors or firms within the industry as opposed to drivers, which create an overall need for change within the industry. It is necessary for the motives to fit into a strategic plan. Examples of motives are acquisition of technology, or resources, or attaining economies of scale, which seems relevant to the defence industry. If they do not fit into the strategic plan, they may pose hurdles in further strategic moves. Strategic Alliance Life Cycles The authors have adopted the concept from Doz and Hamel, who have developed a process for alliance formation which is classified under four headings as operational scope, configurations and contributions, alliance governance, and alliance interface. These are not unambiguous and the whole process can be looked at as a map of alliance formation, with different kinds of alliances having different starting and ending points. Learning, Trust and Culture Various researches have proved that a lot depends on the inter-relation of these three parameters in a strategic alliance. During the period of alliance, the firm that learns more from its partner, stand to gain more from the alliance. Hammel refers to this as internalisation of partner’s skills. Such internalisation is primary motive of many firms in entering alliances and on termination of the alliance, they are still successful in their motive. The most attractive resources to internalise are leading edge technology and management techniques. For such alliances, the structure, culture, and communication patterns are not as important as the learning process. The authors touch upon the issue of trust by mentioning that the best practices of interaction between senior executives of partnering firms, shared values, effective communication, and a multi-disciplinary effort between the firms is responsible for good trust building. Culture and its compatibility, especially in pooli ng of resources for research and development work is also an important aspect of strategic alliance, relevant to defence manufacturing industry. Defence Manufacturing and Strategic Alliances Not surprisingly, there is a tremendous growth in the strategic alliances in defence manufacturing industry as a result of the factors mentioned above. However, one factor that goes against this phenomenon is the sovereignty of operations as a result of the state determining supply and demand of this industry, which is a strategic economical d military asset. The advantages of such alliances have been adopted from Draper as acquisition of technological assets, lowering of unit costs, and vertical development of supply chain. The objectives of the nation to maintain its proprietary technology are contrast with the objectives of joint ventures, which are to gain technological resources for the second tier countries, and to gain access to cheaper manufacturing and sourcing for the first tier countries, besides the joint objectives of larger market access and amortisation of defence research. An option to full blown cross border mergers is collaboration which has the advantage of sharing of non-recurring costs, interoperability, economies of scale, lesser chances of scraping of projects amongst others. But the chief deterrent is the issue of sharing workload in proportion to investment made, leading to excessive capacities, complex industrial arrangements, and impedance to free technology transfer. Alliance Life Cycles Within the Defence Manufacturing Industry Due to the decline of number of firms in this industry, the firms lay emphasis on reputation and experience in strategic alliances as well as the technology to choose their partners from the limited pool. In the first phase of alliance formation, the opportunities from the business venture are checked for fit with the firm’s strategic plan. In the second stage, a cost benefit analysis is done. The further life cycle is very well demonstrated with a diagram, which highlights stages like Partner selection, Agreement on goals, Development of relationships, Binding initial agreement, and Ensuring equality. Also, this industry is characterised by typically high research costs and the risks were formerly covered by the large national defence budgets. But with reducing budgets and the demand for cutting edge semiconductor technology, this risk has now blown beyond proportion for firms to handle it alone. An unsuccessful bid may result in a financial hiccup whereas an uncompetitive pr oduct would result in shutting down of a large part of production units. Results of Empirical Investigations The formation of strategic alliances varies between the sectors within the industry due to varying corporate culture. The levels of cross border cooperation vary between sectors, with electronics leading the pack and ordnance and small arms lagging far behind. The structure of alliance depends on the size of the partners, with the SMEs preferring licensing agreements and the larger players preferring collaboration, for commercial and governance reasons. On the other hand, joint ventures allow the marriage of complementary competencies and provide an opportunity to gain contracts from the partners’ markets. In partnerships involving partners of unequal sizes, friction is caused due to different perceptions of life cycle and time. The development of the structure in the defence manufacturing industry depends very much on the position of the firms within the industrys hierarchy and its ability to select the best structure to fit into its overall group structure. Yet this is very much customer driven and depends on the governments, which are the major customers. If the goal of the alliance is knowledge transfer, there is a lot of communication at lower levels in the student teacher mould, and this diminishes with time. Also, it depends on the sizes of the firms. The nationalities of firms induce superiority or inferiority complexes in partners based on history. Relationship development is important and is demonstrated with the help of the example that though UK and US have compatible cultures and one would expect successful strategic alliances between them, that is not the case and there arise many misunderstandings between partnering firms. This also demonstrates the importance of cultural compatibilities and the need for the senior executives of the partnering firms to make conscious efforts to internationalise and remove cultural interpretative difficulties. Legality of the agreement is given particular emphasis because of the high cost of cutting edge te chnology and the sensitive nature of the industry. The agreements ensure that the resources promised by the partners are released, that the potential demands are not inflated and the technology is not sold to a rival government to be used against the firm’s nation. Firms use this initial period of agreement formation to try to identify any hidden agendas on the part of the prospective partner by analysing what the partner is looking for and why. Issues of equality of control and risk are sensitive to handle and have importance only in equity based alliances. In a working alliance, communication gaps are a major problem, owing to difference in language, culture and management styles. The degree of communication required depends on the type of alliance, being maximum in joint ventures and least in licensing. The older executives tend to neglect the market dynamics, owing to an orientation towards protected industry as it used to be. Also, it can be hypothesised that the degree to which an alliance is formally reviewed depends on the size of the firm. Contrary to the literature, which says that alliances in this industry are formed for operational reasons like gaining economies of scale and share risk, the research finds that the alliances are formed for strategic reasons like maintaining market share and market power. Discussion The authors say that contrary to the belief, globalisation is not the primary driver for alliances in the defence manufacturing industry, which is consolidating. They point out that the high technology, which is tools for many industries for operations, is the product for this industry and its expenses and relationships are well documented. To gain the advantages of controlling the partnership and the prevention of the partner’s internalisation of its competencies, the firms in this industry prefer collaboration, which are also easier to manage, and can be structured to accommodate legal changes to initial agreements, like workshare proportions, sales estimates, etc, including change of partners. The nature of the strategic alliances also depends on the nationality of firms, with the US firms showing significant orientation for collaborations and licensing agreements. Also, the US firms indulge in a lot of alliances and most of them are to gain technology which they have not a lready developed. But they later impose restrictions such that market development for their partners, using the US technology becomes impossible. UK, France and Germany are next in the number of alliances, with UK- France partnerships being primarily in electronics and Germany’s involvement in land vehicles, aircrafts, etc. The authors also point out that the effect of commercial practices on corporate culture needs to be investigated. The authors end with a note on convergence of mutual perceptions. The give examples of The US firms perceiving European short tem partners as less beneficial in the long run and UK experiencing competition from other European countries to partner with US. The authors are quick to point out that the future of European markets is difficult to predict and that a lot would depend on Government support and influence. Personal Opinion The drivers for change in the defence manufacturing industry have rightly been identified. In today’s world, no country has the economy to sustain long term war, except the US. Owing to this, the market for the industry in question is definitely reducing. The other observation is about government control over this industry. With the primary intention of building efficiencies in this industry and to incorporate accountability, the states are making conscious efforts to privatise the industry. As a result, the support which the industry had to cover financial risks is fast disappearing. Also, the sensitivity of the industry, makes it difficult for the players to operate in the open economy environment and to indulge in technology transfer. All these key issues have definitely made strategic alliances a key strategic policy. This also the reason why the industry is consolidating. Also, the issue of costs of research and development is another prime driver. But what needs a deeper thought is the way the companies exercise this strategic tool. For this analysis, the concept of life cycle of the alliance is very useful. But a detail study of some of the failures need to be done in the context of the lifecycle. What kind of partnership can go wrong at what stage with what kind of mistakes needs to be found out. The strategies for success, in this case lie in searching the reasons for failure. Also, the prices of most of these equipments is prohibitively high. So the strategic alliances for firms belonging to nations, which do not have the potential to buy the equipment, is a sensitive issue. It need to be found that what kind of companies look for partners in such countries. Are sourcing considerations the only ones for such alliances, and the benefits derived for the smaller partner need to be looked at. The other major consideration is the influence of European Council on such partnerships. Also, the organisations like NATO should have some effect on them. Wh at needs to be found out is the stage of the lifecycle in which these factors gain importance. Also, the extent to which these factors influence is not known. Another important part is that the customers drive the decision about the kind of alliance that the partners enter into. But does this not conflict with the aim of the organisations? This a question to which answers can be provided only by scrutinising case studies of attempts to form strategic alliances. The one other important issue is the legality of the agreements. The issues involved are sensitive and the partners try to make these as watertight as possible. The effect of this on the trust and information sharing between partners is of prime importance. The transfer of knowledge and it use later on is dependent on these agreements, and the US seems to be taking complete advantage of thefact for maximum benefit. And the final point that comes to the mind is the effect of such alliances on the relations between the nations of the partnering firms. In some cases, the relations between the nations have an effect on the strength and structure of partnerships. In some cases, it is the opposite, and the relations between the nations may be based on the strengths of the partnerships. Conclusion To conclude, I would like to say that the best practices for the success of strategic alliances are based on the structure of industries. It is pretty obvious that when it comes to defence industry, the structure is significantly different from the other industries. So, the best practices in other industries may not be viable in the case of the defence industry. But the recommendable practices need to be identified to help the industry benefit from the experience of the other firms in theprocess of such strategic alliances.

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

The practice of secondment and the goal of a more efficient and Essay

The practice of secondment and the goal of a more efficient and accepted implementation - Essay Example As will be discussed in this analysis, workers on secondment are often reticent to exert their full potential and treat the assignment with the same rigor and determination that they are inclined to do in their normal work. Furthermore, due to this approach, efficiency is lost and with that lost efficiency, profitability for the organization is also lost. As such, it is management’s desire to recapture this lost efficiency and work to promote the role of secondments, although temporary, as an integral role within the organizational structure and work to change cultural and personal perceptions that currently exist within the organization. 1.2 Identify the aim, scope and objective of the project. The purpose of this brief analysis is to discuss the process of conducting a project as it would relate to the process of secondment in the United Kingdom. These current issues include, but are not limited to: issues of reduced efficiency due to employee distaste for the system, loss o f overall profitability associated with the aforementioned loss of efficiency, and the overall reticence of employees throughout the organization to eagerly venture outside the norms and comforts of the routine they have grown accustomed to. As such, the purpose of this analysis will be to build a plan of action with relation to conducting a management project that is intended to better streamline and ensure the continued success of secondment; all the while working to reduce the negative aspects of the practice that have become so evident in company culture. 1.3 Justify the aim and objective of the project. The clear justification of this particular project is the direct need to redefine the process of secondment as something that can be a net positive for both parties involved and not a dreaded component of the work plan. As such, this analysis will draw upon the main goals of incentivizing the process in different ways, focusing on the needs of the employee and the employer, and maximizing the efficiency that had previously been lost due to dissatisfaction associated with interruption that secondment portends. The greater purpose intended is to create an environment in which secondment is looked upon in a different light; so that while valuable tangential work experience is obtained, the employee continues to maintain an open mind as to the process and is also mindful of the reward mechanisms that are associated with efficient and mindful implementation of the given secondment. 2.1 Identify sources of data and information for the project. For purposes of analysis as well as background information on secondment and the general views that are held with regards to it, this project has analysed multiple scholarly articles and journal entries which will work to shed a light on the common views regarding secondment, differing means of implementation, effects of employee distaste with the current system, specific shortcomings and strengths, loss of efficiency, and a multiplicity of ways in which the system might be improved. Secondly, in order to accurately measure the success of the project, a series of metrics will need to be established to measure employee response to the new rewards system which will be employed to foster success for secondment. Due to the fact that such a systemic

Monday, February 10, 2020

SLP 4 Electronic and Mobile Commerce Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

SLP 4 Electronic and Mobile Commerce - Essay Example The use of traditional chains of distribution has declined with rise of online retail industry. Manufacturers sell their spare parts, and off shelf industrial products through the online channels. However the major goods sold by industries through online channels as their primary sales channels. Companies have to show different prices, build to order option, enable live charts with engineers in case of configuration problems and accept purchase orders and bill to the corporate account. Interconnection of global digital platform has led to astonishing change in the entertainment, media and publishing industry. From books and printed papers, music on CDs, movies rented on DVD and TVs network that forced people to be in front of screen at particular times have changed into always on, easy to time –shift and always with you entertainment, movies, e-books, and music. Revenue is generated through outright purchase e.g. music or purchase of movie theater ticket (Mennecke & Strader, 2002). Second is often subscription e.g. cable TV fees. Next is through advertising fees. Companies pay a lot of money for global advertisement of their business. For example in 2013 global advertising media revenue were estimated to be $489.6 billion. Consumers go to a variety of online and offline services to help them make decision in car buying since most of industries fail to satisfy their needs. The buying process can be simpler and quicker if content on the auto industry in the website is customized to be more relevant to their specific car preferences. This can be achieved through innovation on web chats and mobile enabled websites (Xu & Quaddus, 2010). To reach to more customers the manufacturers and dealer sites should integrate and put in place easier and clearer pricing. Also the company should offer after sale services e.g. maintenance. Growth of internet has led to development of online and mobile banking. This has grown across deep and wide demographic

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Concentration of enzymes Essay Example for Free

Concentration of enzymes Essay CONCLUSION: Based on the results obtained from the experiment it can be concluded that the concentration of enzymes influences the rate of a chemical reaction. If enzyme concentration is decreased then the reaction rate will also decrease. If there is sufficient enzyme to bind with substrate then the reaction will proceed fast and if there are insufficient enzymes present then the reaction will slow down DISCUSSION: It was predicted that with the increase of concentration of amylase solution, the time took to break down starch would decrease . This was proved correct , if basing on just these trials . The graph shows how with every single increase of the concentration , the amount of drops until the mixture fails to give a blue-black colour with iodine solution disappear decreased. This continually happened , without any outliers. The trend-line of the graph shows the predicted linear line in the relationship between concentration of amylase solution and the amount of drops until the mixture fails to give a blue-black colour with iodine solution. The amount of drops until the mixture fails to give a blue-black colour with iodine solution with a amylase concentration of 0.1% was found to be 12 drops, which was plotted on the graph. It can be presumed that a higher concentration of amylase is better because it does not take much time to break down the polysaccharide chains and a higher concentration helps to speed up this process. The amylase concentration of 0.1% took only 12 drops until the mixture fails to give a blue-black colour, while the amylase concentration of 0.05% took 21 drops , the amylase concentration of 0.025% took 24 drops and the amylase concentration of 0.01% took 28 drops. Because the purpose of an enzyme is to speed up a reaction, it is logical that amylase would have a higher concentration so it can take less time for it to do its purpose. At higher amylase concentration the time taken until the mixture fails to give a blue-black colour with iodine solution. Despite this, there are sources of error that need to be acknowledge. The trial proved difficult for some, sometimes yielding no results. Another source may be the mixing of the concentration.

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

My Best Friend Essay -- Friendship Essay Personal Narrative

My Best Friend   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  It was raining the day Mark Turner died. On a dark, rainy summer night, he foolishly got in the passenger side of a 1998 midnight blue Eclipse. His 19 year old cousin Sam, was the driver, and Sam had a little too much to drink that night. At about three in the morning, they were leaving a party that one of Sam's friends threw. They were rushing home, because they already had missed curfew by two hours. Not aware of his surroundings, Sam carelessly got on the wrong side of the road. A speeding pickup was heading right their way. By the time they saw the truck, it was too late. Sam swerved his car to the right. Although they missed hitting the truck by a few inches, the sleet on the road from the rain caused them to go over the rail of a bridge. They were over a 100 feet in the air. Sam died instantly from the impact of the paved concrete below, but their still was a little hope for Mark. Obviously not enough, because he was pronounced dead at approximately 5:38 that morning.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Mark and I grew up in one of those small towns were everybody knew everybody. He lived just two houses down from me. Everything we did, we did together. He knew and understood me like no one else did. He was always there for me through thick and thin. He was the only person who I can say was my best friend. Whenever we got into a fight, I could never be mad at him for more than a day. . We were a team, like Batman and Robin, or Starsky and Hutch, we were blood brothers for li...

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

Managerial Skills Essay

In order for managers to be effective, they must have a clear understanding of whether different skills are important in their managerial role. In addition, managers must have a mutual understanding of the skills and responsibilities necessary for other managers across similar and different organizational levels and functions ([10] Kraut et al. , 1989). If these skills and responsibilities are not clearly understood, managers will neither be able to coordinate work effectively, communicate expectations, deliver feedback, nor be prepared for job transitions or other training and career development activities ([10] Kraut et al. , 1989). In short, understanding whether certain managerial skills are important to a manager’s job is essential. A number of researchers have investigated the roles, tasks, or activities of managers (e.g. [18] Mintzberg, 1973; [13] Luthans, 1988; [10] Kraut et al. , 1989). However, these studies are over a decade old, some more than two or three decades, and have not specifically examined skills. The world of work has changed since these studies, most notably due to organizational downsizing, technology, and the globalization of the workplace. Skills important to managers in the late 1980s and early 1990s may not be as important today. As times change, researchers should update important findings to determine if those findings are still applicable ([4] Cronbach, 1975), especially when considering that the skills and roles of managers need to be clearly defined and understood to effectively teach, select, develop, and promote these individuals in the workplace. Based on results of a study of more than 14,000 managers over two distinct time periods, this paper will highlight whether the importance of certain managerial skills changed over a 15-year time period, and determine which skills are needed at different organizational levels and across organizational functions from the opinions of managers themselves. Our main research question is, to what extent has the importance of certain managerial skills changed, or remained constant, over time, and whether certain skills are important based on organizational level and function. Studies of managers [18] Mintzberg (1973) provided one of the most influential works on managerial roles. Prior to his research, the roles of managers were understood to be embedded in a rigid functional approach of planning jobs, organizing staff, and leading personnel ([20] Pearson and Chatterjee, 2003). However, Mintzberg observed that managers worked at a much faster pace during which they were required to address a range of issues. The job of the manager required an ability to handle more complex roles than those described by classical management theory. Using a descriptive diary method to observe managers at work, Mintzberg identified ten roles of managerial work, which were divided into three categories: interpersonal roles, informational roles, and decisional roles. Expanding on [18] Mintzberg’s (1973) work, [10] Kraut et al. (1989) investigated the differences between managerial levels in the perception of role importance. They identified seven major factors of management tasks including: managing individual performance; instructing subordinates; planning and allocating resources; coordinating interdependent groups; managing group performance; monitoring the business environment; and representing one’s staff. Their findings also revealed distinct differences in role importance based on the level of the manager. For instance, first-level managers reported that managing individual performance and instructing subordinates were the most important set of activities in their job. However, as managers moved up the management hierarchy to the level of middle manager, the importance of these activities dropped and more focus was placed on tasks related to linking groups. The act of linking groups included planning and resource allocation, managing group performance, and coordinating interdependent groups. Executive managers took an even broader view of their job as evidenced by their high importance ratings related to monitoring the environment including business, economic, and social trends. The only commonality among the different managerial levels was the importance they placed on representing their staff; over 50 per cent of managers at each level rated representing staff of â€Å"utmost† or â€Å"considerable importance.† [13] Luthans’ (1988) research also examined differences between top and middle managers. However the focus was more on the distinction between the activities of an effective manager versus a successful manager. Effective managers were identified by a high level of performance in the unit they are responsible for, whereas successful managers were recognized by their rapid promotions within an organization. The activities that characterize effective managers included spending time on communication and human resource management, which can lead to long-term results. In contrast, successful managers spent more time on networking and aimed for short-term results. In addition to differences between levels, [10] Kraut et al. (1989) also compared managerial activities across the different organizational functions of marketing, manufacturing, and administration. For example, a greater percentage of marketing managers rated monitoring the outside environment more important when compared to other managers. Alternately, fewer marketing managers rated instructing subordinates as important when compared to managers in manufacturing and administration. Managers from all three organizational functions indicated that activities involving coordinating interdependent groups were important. The present study will attempt to expand on similar research such as those previously mentioned. First, this research examines managerial skills, which are much different than managerial roles, activities, or tasks. While past research has determined what roles or activities are important for managers and what tasks managers tend to spend much of their time on, this research attempts to determine what skills are important for managerial jobs. Second, this research will use opinions from practicing managers totaling more than 14,000 from two distinct time periods (1988-1992, and 2004-2006) to capture what skills have been important in the past, and determine whether those skills have changed in importance over time. In addition, this research will examine whether managerial skills are important across different organizational levels and organizational functions in the context of today’s work environment. The changing world of work The aforementioned research regarding the importance of managerial tasks, roles, and activities was conducted in the 1970s and 1980s. There is reason to believe that skills once deemed important for managers may have adjusted in relative importance since much has changed in the world of work since these studies. One can assume that the changes in the world of work may coincide with possible changes in the importance of different managerial skills. Organizations have become flatter and less hierarchical with fewer levels and more responsibilities ([2] Allen et al. , 2001; [16] McKinley et al. , 2000; [17] Miller, 1990). Also, organizational downsizing is commonplace due to the increasing need to reduce costs, to eliminate unnecessary levels of management, and to streamline operations ([5] DeMeuse et al. , 2004). As organizations become less hierarchical, there is reason to believe that the skills managers thought were important in the past may have changed in scope. Organizations also exist in a different environmental context than 15 years ago. Due to improved technology such as e-mail and the internet, changes have occurred in the way managers and co-workers interact. We have seen the emergence of the Internet as a major form of communication and e-commerce as a new source of business. Flexible work patterns and the ability to work in geographically dispersed teams is now a common reality in the workplace ([27] Wallace, 2004). These changes have cultivated the need for better communication, coordination, improved performance, team monitoring, and more interdependence and trust ([22], [21] Salas et al. , 2004, 2005; [28] Zaccaro et al. , 2004). Teams and organizations are increasingly becoming more global or virtual in nature. As a result, an awareness of different cultures and attention to multiculturalism and globalization is vital for the success of many managers. As organizations become more fast-paced and global, there is also speculation that the importance of different skills managers need may have shifted in scope. [7] Kanter (1989) argued that these rapid changes, spurred by technology and competitive pressures, have made traditional forms of organizing work obsolete. Managers may believe certain skills are important in order to be a partner with and empower employees to address business problems on their own and to work in cross-functional teams, which could be different than the skills believed to be important 15 years ago. Managers must fully understand their roles and responsibilities and become adept at a variety of skills to perform their job effectively ([1] Ahearn et al. , 2004; [6] Halbesleben et al. , 2003; [25] Stockdale and Crosby, 2004; [27] Wallace, 2004; [28] Zaccaro et al. , 2004). As previously mentioned, understanding the skills of managers is essential to coordinate work effectively, communicate expectations, deliver feedback, and for training and career development ([10] Kraut et al. , 1989). It is unknown whether the changes over the past 15 years that have occurred in an organizational and global context have also coincided with possible changes in importance of managerial skills over time. A recent case study reexamined [18] Mintzberg’s (1973) work 30 years after the original research by studying the pattern of behavior among four executives in Sweden ([26] Tengblad, 2006). The findings revealed that modern executives are more oriented towards working with subordinates in group-settings and focus more time on giving information rather than performing administrative duties. However, Tengblad noted significant similarities with Mintzberg’s original study, indicating that claims of the emergence of radically different managerial work may be exaggerated. However, due to the small sample size and lack of empirical data in that study, it is important that further work specifically examine the modern skills of managers with a wide range of managers and ample sample size. In other words, are the skills thought to be important to managers 15 years ago still important to managers in today’s work context? The present research will attempt to answer this question and provide relevant present-day information for managers and those who work with, train and develop them, by re-examining the importance of managerial skills across two distinct time periods and across both organizational level and function in the context of today’s work environment. Method Participants This research used data from two waves of managers engaged in a leadership development program from a leadership development provider in order to compare differences in managerial skills over time. The first wave consisted of 7,389 managers from the USA involved in a leadership development process between 1988 and 1992. The second wave consisted of 7,410 managers from the USA who were involved in a leadership development process between 2004 and 2006. Because of data housing and management issues, demographic data could not be given for the first wave of participants. However, aggregate biographical data from the leadership development provider from the time period of 1988 to 1992 revealed that leadership development participants in general were similar in terms of age, gender, race, education, and job status to those of 2004 to 2006. Demographic data in aggregate could be given for the 7,410 participants of the second wave. The average age of the managers in the second wave was 41.73 years old, 59 per cent were male, 86 per cent were white, 69 per cent worked in the private sector and 77 per cent had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree. Managers came from over 60 organizational types (e.g. aerospace and defense, finance, communications, government, education) and over 1,300 companies. In addition, 999 managers (13.5 per cent) were first-level managers (forepersons, crew chiefs, section supervisors), 3,136 (42.3 per cent) were middle-level managers (office managers, professional staff, mid-level administrators), 2,197 (29.6 per cent) were upper-middle managers (department executives, plant managers, senior professional staff), and 1,078 (14.6 per cent) were top or executive level managers (chief executives or operating officers, presidents, vice presidents, directors). Measure Managerial skills . Data determining the importance of managerial skills was collected from SKILLSCOPE ®[1] a 360-degree instrument that assesses job related strengths and weaknesses. The instrument has 98 items that are organized into 15 skill clusters. These clusters represent 15 skills and roles managers need in order to be effective in their job which are part of Mintzberg’s three categories (interpersonal, informational, and decisional) and two other categories (personal resources and effective use of self). The conceptual basis for SKILLSCOPE ® is research which focused on managerial skills, roles and tasks (e.g. [3] Beggs and Doolittle, 1988; [8] Kaplan, 1987; [9] Kotter, 1982; [14] McCall and Kaplan, 1984; [15] McCall et al. , 1979; [18], [19] Mintzberg, 1973, 1990; [23] Sayles, 1979; [24] Stewart, 1976). As part of their leadership development process, managers chose which five of the 15 skill clusters were the most important for their current job. Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] describes each skill cluster. Results A frequency count of the data revealed the skills that are most important for managers in their current job. Result show that both â€Å"Communicating information, ideas† (60.1 per cent of the managers in 1988-1992 and 63 per cent of the managers in 2004-2006) and â€Å"Taking actions, making decisions, following through† (59.7 per cent of the managers in 1988-1992 and 62.9 per cent of the managers in 2004-2006) were the most important skills across all managers. On the other hand, â€Å"Self-management, self-insight, self-development† and â€Å"Openness to influence; flexibility† were the least important for managers in 1988 through 1992 (8.6 per cent and 8.8 per cent respectively as one of the most important skills needed) and managers in 2004 through 2006 (10.9 per cent and 7.2 per cent selected respectively as one of the most important skills needed). Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] shows a comparison between managers from 1988-1992 and managers from 2004-2006. Many of the skills were similar in importance for both waves of managers. However, there were three skill clusters with differences of more than 10 percentage points that should be noted. First, 39.9 per cent of 2004-2006 managers rated â€Å"Relationships† as one of five important skill clusters which was an increase from 29.4 per cent of managers in 1988-1992. Second, 33 per cent of 2004-2006 managers rated â€Å"Administrative/organizational ability† as one of five important skill clusters, a decrease from the 45 per cent of managers was from 1988-1992. Finally, 31.7 per cent of managers from 2004-2006 rated â€Å"Time management† as one of five important skill clusters which was an increase from the 19.7 per cent of managers in 1988-1992. The next set of analyses focused only on the 2004-2006 managers. Examining the results as a whole may mask important findings based on managerial levels. Consequently, we analyzed the importance of managerial skills across the four managerial levels for the present study, similar to [10] Kraut et al. (1989). Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] displays the importance rankings for each skill sorted by managerial level. â€Å"Communicating information, ideas† and â€Å"Taking action, making decisions, following through† were the two most important skills for all managerial levels with the exception of first-level managers. While â€Å"Taking action, making decisions, following through† ranked as the most important for first-level managers, â€Å"Knowledge of job, business† ranked as second-most important, followed by â€Å"Communicating information, ideas†. On the other hand, â€Å"Openness to influence, flexibility† was the least important to managers at each level, again with the exception of first-level managers who believed â€Å"Risk-taking, innovation† was the least important, followed by â€Å"Openness to influence, flexibility†. In general, the importance rankings were similar across managerial levels, though there are some notable exceptions. First, â€Å"Getting information, making sense of it; problem identification† was less important for top/executive-level managers (48 per cent) than for other managerial levels (each over 55 per cent). Second, as managerial level increased, so did the importance of â€Å"Influencing, leadership, and power†, (from 21 per cent of first-level managers to 45 per cent of top/executive level managers), and of â€Å"Risk-taking, innovation† (from 7 per cent of first-level managers to 22 per cent of top/executive level managers). Last, as managerial level increased, the importance of two managerial skills decreased, namely â€Å"Knowledge of job, business† (from 63 per cent of first-level managers to 45 per cent of top/executive-level managers) and â€Å"Time management† (from 42 per cent of first-level managers to 19 per cent of top/executive-level managers). In addition, viewing the results from all managers in aggregate may also conceal important findings based specifically on job function, as managers in different functions may have different managerial challenges ([10] Kraut et al. , 1989). In order to account for this, the present study mirrored the data analysis of the [10] Kraut et al. (1989) study in that the levels of management were equally weighted in each function so that no one managerial level would have statistical influence over the other managerial levels, and managers from marketing (n =282), manufacturing (n =253), and administration (n =489) would be selected. Due to the functional diversity of the sample of the second wave, managers from engineering (n =413), human resources/training (n =345), operations (n =916) and sales (n =518) were also examined. Figure 2 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] provides the rankings for the skills of managers across job function. It is interesting to note that the pattern of skill importance is similar across functions. For instance, â€Å"Communicating information, ideas† was most important for marketing, human resource, and sales managers, while â€Å"Taking action, making decisions, following through† was the most important managerial skill for manufacturing, administration, engineering, and operations. In fact, across the seven managerial functions studied, these two managerial skills were among the top three in importance for each managerial function. On the other hand, â€Å"Openness to influence; flexibility† was the least important to managers across all functions except for managers in human resources, who believed â€Å"Energy, drive, and ambition† was the least important. Some managerial skills were rated similarly in importance across managerial functions. For instance, between 22 per cent and 27 per cent of managers across different functions believed â€Å"Coping with pressure, adversity; integrity† was important. Also, between 8 per cent and 13 per cent of managers thought â€Å"Self-management, self-insight, self-development† was an important skill to have. There was variability among the importance of some skills across managerial function. For example, â€Å"Administrative/organizational ability† was important for less than 25 per cent of managers in marketing, manufacturing, and sales, but was important for 58 per cent of managers in administration. â€Å"Getting information, making sense of it; problem identification† was less important for sales managers (39 per cent) than it was for engineering managers (65 per cent). Regarding â€Å"Managing conflict; negotiation† it is interesting to note that most managers rated it the same in importance (between 27 per cent and 31 per cent) except managers from marketing, where only 17 per cent of managers thought it was important. Managers in manufacturing (25 per cent) and engineering (26 per cent) ranked â€Å"Relationships† less important than human resources (51 per cent) and sales (52 per cent) managers. â€Å"Selecting, developing, accepting people† was important to some managers in manufacturing and sales (both 35 per cent), but was not as important to marketing managers (12 per cent). Discussion In total, 30 years after [18] Mintzberg’s (1973) original study, [26] Tengblad (2006) found that while some things have changed, managerial work has remained the same, despite changes in the world of work. In a similar fashion, the present research attempted to determine whether the importance of skills managers need in their job have shifted over a 15-year time period. Though many have commented on how the world of work has changed over the past 15 years (e.g. [2] Allen et al. , 2001; [5] DeMeuse et al. , 2004; [7] Kanter, 1989; [16] McKinley et al. , 2000; [17] Miller, 1990; [22], [21] Salas et al. , 2004, 2005; [27] Wallace, 2004; [28] Zaccaro et al. , 2004), the data of the present research suggests that despite the changes in the work environment, the importance of certain managerial skills is somewhat similar. For instance, what was believed to be important in 1988-1992 (i.e. â€Å"Communicating information, ideas† and â€Å"Taking action, making decisions, following through†) is still considered important for managers today. In addition, skills that were not thought of as important in 1988-1992 (i.e. â€Å"Self-management, self-insight, self-development† and â€Å"Openness to influence; flexibility†) are still not thought of as important for managers in today’s work context. Despite these apparent similarities, there are some noteworthy differences between what managers thought was important 15 years ago and what managers think is important today. First, â€Å"Relationships† seem to be more important now than for managers 15 years ago. [26] Tengblad (2006) hinted at this with the finding that executives are concentrating more today (than 30 years ago) on working with others in a group setting. The increased importance of this skill cluster coincided with the changes in the organizational context that managers today must face. The use of communication technology, such as e-mail, and the existence of geographically dispersed teams require managers to be more deliberate in the effort they devote towards forming and maintaining relationships. The nonverbal cues that aid in face-to-face communication cannot be relied on in virtual relationships. By acknowledging and facing the challenges presented by these new forms of communication, managers can successfully execute their job requirements. In addition, the flattening of organizational hierarchies has forced a higher level of coordination and collaboration between peers. As more and more people work in an environment structured around the work team, the more likely a focus on building relationships will be encouraged. For instance, more time is devoted to interdependence and trust in a team setting ([22], [21] Salas et al. , 2004, 2005; [28] Zaccaro et al. , 2004), where ultimately, building relationships is necessary. [26] Tengblad (2006) found that executives are indeed focusing less time on administrative duties, and [7] Kanter (1989) also revealed that organizing work was becoming obsolete with changes in the environment. In a similar fashion, the present study found that â€Å"Administrative/organizational ability† seems to be less important today than it was 15 years ago. One of the reasons could correspond with the recent trend of the flattening of organizations. Organizations have become more streamlined, and responsibility has become more spread out in the organization. In effect, managers do not have a hierarchical structure to manage. The administrative tasks that were needed in more hierarchical structures 15 years ago are not needed as much in the present work context. The advent of technology has also facilitated many organizational processes that were once paper-based. More and more companies have converted to computer-based processes (i.e. online recruiting and staffing) that have minimized the necessity to focus one’s skill on administrative or organizational duties. â€Å"Time management† appears more important now than it was 15 years ago. The reasons why could coincide with changes in the work context. Technology now enables people from around the world to work in real-time, to contact people instantly, and work more quickly. E-mail has replaced mail and fax. The use of cell phones and electronic devices such as â€Å"blackberries† has also increased. At the same time, employees are focusing on creating balance between their professional lives and their personal lives, attempting to get work out of the way faster. Employees and their managers therefore must focus on time management now more than ever. The differences in importance rankings of managerial skills we observed between managers at different organizational levels confirm previous findings in the literature. [10] Kraut et al. (1989) found that some managerial roles are considered important at each level, but the degree of importance may be contingent on a particular level. In the present study, â€Å"Influencing, leadership, and power† and â€Å"Risk-taking and innovation† showed an increase in importance ranking as managerial level increased. Both of these skills are indicative of senior levels of leadership. As a manager takes on more responsibility, it is critical to the manager’s success that the manager’s focus shifts to meet the new demands of the job. Also important to note, some managerial skills differ in importance depending on managerial function and relevance. For instance, â€Å"Administrative/organizational ability† is more important to managers in administration than it is for any of the other functions because administrative ability is inherent in the administrative function. â€Å"Getting information, making sense of it; problem identification† is more important for engineering managers than it is for any of the other functions because working with information and problem identification is particularly relevant for engineers. â€Å"Communicating information and ideas† and â€Å"Risk-taking, innovation† are more important for managers in marketing than any of the other functions because those with a marketing background must be able to communicate and be innovative. Finally, â€Å"Relationships† is more important for managers in sales and HR than any of the other functions because sales and HR functions are dependent on forming and building good relationships. In effect, some skills are important to different managerial functions because of relevance of the specific organizational function. Practical applications Determining what is important for managers at each level and each function is crucial to coordinating work effectively, communicating expectations, and facilitating training and career development activities ([10] Kraut et al. , 1989). Relying on past (or outdated) information about the importance of certain managerial skills, roles, tasks, or activities could hinder effective work coordination, communication, and effective training and career development. Hence, â€Å"updating† this type of information may help managers in their work and development, even if it is to simply validate or reinforce previous findings. Imagine the challenges managers face if relevant information about the importance of certain skills in their jobs were not correct or outdated. If information from previous research from the 1970s or 1980s is still used for coordinating work activities and it has not been updated, managers may be concentrating on different or unnecessary skills that are no longer relevant. This could greatly impede their work, their advancement, and ultimately, their success. Moreover, managers may not be taught the appropriate skills for the present-day work environment that is needed to succeed if training and development relies on outdated information. For instance, [11] Lipshitz and Nevo (1992) detailed research of the competencies of effective and ineffective managers whose activities and practices aided the design of training and development programs. Knowing which managerial skills are important for different managerial levels and functions would definitely bring knowledge to improve training and development programs. Because of their rated importance, the data suggests that managerial training and development in today’s world of work may need to keep focus on communication and decision-making, decrease focus on administration and organization ability, and increase focus on enhancing relationships and the concept of time management. In addition, these findings may help those in selection and in succession planning; knowing that certain skills are important at different levels and functions can help determine what type of manager is needed at each level or each function. For instance, time management may be a skill set that is necessary particularly for first-level managers and not top-level executives, and hence, first level managers should have that appropriate skill for the job. Administrative/organizational ability may be important for managers in the administration function, and those in succession planning or selection for managers in that particular function should keep in mind that information, along with relevant information from any job analysis or competency model. Limitations and future directions There are some limitations to this study. First, asking managers to choose five of 15 skill clusters that are important to their current job does not provide the level of detail that could be obtained by evaluating the importance of each cluster using other methodologies. In the present study, a skill cluster is either among a manager’s top five most important or it is not. Therefore, the data does not permit an assessment of how much more important the top five skill clusters were than the ten skill clusters not selected. In addition, the data did not allow us to assess any relative ranking among the top five skills. As a result, it would be useful to assess the importance of clusters, competencies, roles, skills, or abilities using a Likert-type scale in the future. In this manner, researchers could examine to what extent each cluster is important to managers. Also, examining what managers believe are the most important skills for their job may not yield the same findings as asking what their direct reports or supervisors consider important. Future research should investigate what direct reports and supervisors of managers think are important skills for managers to acquire a more global perspective of managerial competencies, similar to those acquired through competency modeling (e.g. [12] Lucia and Lepsinger, 1999). Also, asking similar questions to managers outside the United States would bring more information about the importance of managerial skills across cultures. Combining the quantitative approach of evaluating to what extent a variety of skills are important for managers along with more qualitative methodologies of on-the-job observation and interviewing to assess competencies should create a more comprehensive picture of â€Å"today’s manager†. Finally, any future research should capture the demographic data for the sample across successive waves. Without knowing more about the sample composition for the first wave of data, it is not possible to ascertain whether changes over time are due to differences in organizational structure or function, differences in individual jobs represented by the sample, or differences in workforce composition. Therefore, explanations of changes cited in our findings may be due to structure changes and changes in technology or they may be due to changes in workforce demographics (i.e. aging baby-boomers). The best this research can conclude is that shifts in the importance of certain managerial skills have coincided with changes in the context of the world of work. However, with the present research data set, having a large sample of more than 7,000 managers with similar aggregate demographic data for each time period may tend to lead to more generalizable results than would a sample of a lesser number of participants. The world of work has changed over the past 15 years. Results of this study revealed that managers today feel the need to concentrate more on building relationships and time management skills and focus less on administrative and organizational ability. However, many of the skills managers thought were important to their job in the late 1980s and early 1990s are somewhat similar in importance from the opinions of managers in the first decade of the 2000s, particularly skills concerning communication and decision making. To answer the original research question, much like [26] Tengblad (2006) found, despite noticeable changes in the world of work, while some managerial skills shifted in importance, some managerial skills remain as important today as 15 years ago. The importance of these managerial skills not only coincided with the changes in the work environment, but also are context dependent based on managerial level and function. For instance, though time management has increased in importance over the years, managers at lower levels (i.e. first-level managers) seem to believe time management is more important to their job than those at higher levels (i.e. top- or executive-level managers). In essence, one should take note not only of how the importance of certain skills change over time, but also, that certain skills believed to be important for managers at one particular level or function may be more or less important for managers at other levels or other functions. In the end, knowing this information is essential to effectively teach, select, develop, train, and promote managers in the workplace. Portions of this paper are based on a poster that was presented at the 2007 Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology Conference, New York City, New York. Footnote 1. SKILLSCOPE is a registered trademark of the Center for Creative Leadership. References 1. Ahearn, K.K., Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A., Douglas, C. and Ammeter, A.P. (2004), â€Å"Leader political skill and team performance†, Journal of Management, Vol. 30, pp. 309-27. 2. Allen, T.D., Freeman, D.M., Russell, J.E.A., Reizenstein, R.C. and Rentz, J.O. (2001), â€Å"Survivor reactions to organizational downsizing: does time ease the pain?†, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 145-64. 3. Beggs, J.M. and Doolittle, D.C. (1988), â€Å"Mintzberg revisited: a study of chief executive officers†, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 17-21. 4. Cronbach, L.J. (1975), â€Å"Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology†, American Psychologist, Vol. 30, pp. 116-27. 5. DeMeuse, K.P., Bergmann, T.J., Vanderheide, P.A. and Roraaf, C.E. (2004), â€Å"New evidence regarding organizational downsizing and a firm’s financial performance: a long-term analysis†, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 16, pp. 155-77. 6. Halbesleben, J.R.B., Novicevic, M.M., Harvey, M.G. and Buckley, M.R. (2003), â€Å"Awareness of temporal complexity in leadership of creativity and innovation: a competency-based model†, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 433-54. 7. Kanter, R.M. (1989), â€Å"The new managerial work†, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67, pp. 85-92. 8. Kaplan, R.E. (1987), The Warp and Woof of the General Manager’s Job, Tech. Rep. (27), Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC. 9. Kotter, J.P. (1982), The General Managers, The Free Press, New York, NY. 10. Kraut, A.I., Pedigo, P.R., McKenna, D.D. and Dunnette, M.D. (1989), â€Å"The role of the manager: what’s really important in different management jobs†, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 3, pp. 286-93. 11. Lipshitz, R. and Nevo, B. (1992), â€Å"Who is a ‘good manager’?†, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 3-7. 12. Lucia, A.D. and Lepsinger, R. (1999), The Art and Science of Competency Modeling: Pinpointing Critical Success Factors in Organizations, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA. 13. Luthans, F. (1988), â€Å"Successful versus effective real managers†, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 2, pp. 127-32. 14. McCall, M.W. Jr and Kaplan, R.E. (1984), Whatever It Takes: Decision Makers at Work, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 15. McCall, M.W. Jr, Lombardo, M.M. and Devries, D.L. (1979), The Looking Glass Inc. ® Simulation, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC. 16. McKinley, W., Zhao, J. and Rust, K.G. (2000), â€Å"Sociocognitive interpretation of organizational downsizing†, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 227-43. 17. Miller, D.B. (1990), â€Å"Organizational, environmental, and work design strategies that foster competence†, in Willis, S.L. and Dubin, S.S. (Eds), Maintaining Professional Competence: Approaches to Career Enhancement Vitality, and Success throughout a Work Life, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 233-48. 18. Mintzberg, H. (1973), The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper & Row, New York, NY. 19. Mintzberg, H. (1990), â€Å"The manager’s job: folklore and fact†, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, pp. 163-76. 20. Pearson, C. and Chatterjee, S. (2003), â€Å"Managerial roles in Asia: an empirical study of Mintzberg’s role formulation in four Asian countries†, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22, pp. 694-707. 21. Salas, E., Sims, D.E. and Burke, C.S. (2005), â€Å"Is there a ‘Big five’ in teamwork?†, Small Group Research, Vol. 36, pp. 555-99. 22. Salas, E., Kosarzycki, M.P., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Carnegie, D. (2004), â€Å"Principles and advice for understanding and promoting effective teamwork in organizations†, in Burke, R.J. and Cooper, C. (Eds), Leading in Turbulent Times, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 95-120. 23. Sayles, L.R. (1979), Leadership: What Effective Managers Really Do†¦ and How They Do It, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 24. Stewart, R. (1976), Contracts in Management, McGraw-Hill, London. 25. Stockdale, M.S. and Crosby, F.J. (2004), The Psychology and Management of Workplace Diversity, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA. 26. Tengblad, S. (2006), â€Å"Is there a ‘new managerial work’? A comparison with Henry Mintzberg’s classic study 30 years later†, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43, pp. 1437-61. 27. Wallace, P. (2004), The Internet in the Workplace: How New Technology Is Transforming Work, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 28. Zaccaro, S.J., Ardison, S.D. and Orvis, K.A. (2004), â€Å"Leadership in virtual teams†, in Day, D.V. and Zaccaro, S.J. (Eds), Leader Development for Transforming Organizations: Growing Leaders for Tomorrow, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 267-92.

Monday, January 6, 2020

My Teaching Philosophy Essay - 842 Words

My Teaching Philosophy All of my life I have enjoyed helping others. I have also loved the classes I have had with a really good teacher. I think it’s a wonderful feeling to be able to help someone and to know that there is someone there to help me when I need it. I want to help teach the future leaders of this country, as well as those content with just being themselves and staying out of trouble. I honestly believe in Rosseau’s idea that children are born good and that things in society contribute to whether or not they are troublesome. I want to help these children remain good. Although I plan to teach at the high school level, I still believe these â€Å"bad† children can be helped with the proper attention and care.†¦show more content†¦They in turn could choose to take this information and be successful or to not utilize it to the fullest potential. I want to be the type of teacher that helps kids to reach their potential no matter what they have been told in the past or how low their self-esteem may be. I want to teach kids about the wonderful opportunities that lie ahead for them. I strive to treat all students fairly and to hold their attention and interest at the same time. I hope that students will understand the importance of a good education in the life after school. I hope to help raise self-esteem by using longer wait times and constructive criticism. The students in my classroom will be able to work together and accomplish more than just â€Å"busy work†. They will learn valuable lessons about themselves and their potential. I hope at the beginning of each school year to prepare my student to be ready ad willing to learn. In order to do this I must capture their interest and attention. They will need to think critically and creatively. I plan to use cooperative learning methods, as well as, direct teaching to get my ideas across to students. I will welcome their opinions in class discussions and hope to provide a comfortable atmosphere for them to participate. Class discussions, when kept on track, can make students see things from another’s point of view or get them to think or question they never before thoughtShow MoreRelatedMy Philosophy Of Teaching Philosophy911 Words   |  4 PagesTeaching Philosophy When I think about my teaching philosophy, I think of a quote by Nikos Kazantzakis, Greek writer and philosopher. Kazantzakis states, â€Å"True teachers are those who use themselves as bridges over which they invite their students to cross; then, having facilitated their crossing, joyfully collapse, encouraging them to create their own.† In my classroom, I will provide an environment that shows I am a â€Å"true teacher.† Philosophy of Discipline I believe that children learn best andRead MoreMy Philosophy Of Teaching For Teaching932 Words   |  4 PagesWhen I was learning about teaching in college classes my philosophy of education was different than when I actually started doing my student teaching. As soon as a teacher enters the classroom, it should be his/her second home. Teaching is a field of occupation where teacher needs have these two personality traits: patience and flexibility. Not all teachers are same thus each has their unique way of teaching students. My philosophy for teaching is very simple and fair. I would like to incorporateRead MoreMy Philosophy : My Teaching Philosophy893 Words   |  4 PagesMy Teaching Philosophy Since Koreans started to learn English, thousands of people have struggled to master the language. Parents currently invest a lot of money and their children spend enormous amounts of time studying English as government suggests new language policies. However, proper verification and investigation of those policies have not been done yet and the outlet is really not promising (Suh, 2007). Most Korean students study English for tests. The purpose of English is so focused onRead MoreMy Teaching Philosophy : My Personal Philosophy Of Teaching932 Words   |  4 Pages This is my personal philosophy of teaching. This is my belief about teaching and learning and how I will put my beliefs into classroom practices. First and foremost, the purpose of education is to educate students so that they can be ready for the real world. It should prepare students for life, work, and citizenship. To do this, education should teach one to think creatively and productively. In addition to preparing students for the real world, all students should be able to read and comprehendRead MoreTeaching Philosophy : My Philosophy1100 Words   |  5 PagesTeaching Philosophy: Lauren Gross EDUC 120 Learn to Teach, Learn to Learn. / Use the past to teach the future ( That is my philosophy) Theory helps teachers think about what we experience and furthermore to teach and learn about how we, as educators, learn. Teachers should be supportive and cooperative, teachers should play the role of a friend, but also stealthily act in the role of advisor or guide for students. Teachers should live by existing educational theories, but also be able to createRead MoreMy Philosophy : Teaching Philosophy1071 Words   |  5 PagesAfter reading Professor Varis teaching philosophy it is quite evident he takes great consideration for his students and their learning opportunities. As I reflect on and review my understanding and my learning philosophy I am given the chance to reflect on past classes and possibly what could have been different on my behalf and the professor’s behalf. Also at this time I relish the opportunity to contimplate what my values, principles, achievement skills and also my expectations for this class areRead MoreMy Philosophy Of Teaching Philosophy1145 Wor ds   |  5 PagesMy teaching philosophy is to engage in a mutual exchange of knowledge with the students. I believe that through helping students to develop skills of critical reflection and critical thinking they will become able to carry out innovative research and also succeed in work beyond academia. Through interactive teaching methods such as group work, role play, and joint presentations I seek not only to encourage students to engage with me as an instructor, but also to exchange and discuss ideas with theirRead MoreMy Philosophy Of Teaching Philosophy1888 Words   |  8 PagesTeaching Philosophy My philosophy of education is founded on the core principle that all children should have equal access to a quality education that will prepare them for higher education and to be contributing members of society. Schools were founded on the primary principle of teaching values to students as well as educating them academically. While values have been removed from the curriculum, I still believe much of what we do as teachers is instilling values in our students. As educators,Read MoreMy Teaching Philosophy1217 Words   |  5 Pagesis at the elementary school level. My current goal is to either teach the 4th or 5th grade level. Moreover, throughout the semester I have read about or seen different philosophies through the observations I have done throughout the semester. While reading chapter 6 in the class text I thought to myself, as an educator what will be teaching philosophy that best suited my beliefs. Moreover, in chapter 6 there was a test where one would figure out their phil osophy according to the test result. For meRead MoreMy Teaching Philosophy1088 Words   |  5 PagesSince the beginning of my academic career, teaching has always been an important part of my academic duties. The interaction that I have with students is not only enjoyable to me, but it also gives me an invaluable perspective on the subjects I am teaching. Since I started my position at the Mathematical Institute at the University of Oxford, I have tutored in four classes across three semesters and supervised two projects, as detailed in my CV. I am also tutoring two new undergraduate classes in