Search results

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

What makes a good training course? This question feels relatively unasked given its importance, and there are few more important questions any human resources (HR) department or any other could pose. With an average budget in an organization of $1 million annually, there is a vast amount of resources that go into ensuring that the employees receive the best, most relevant training possible. As such, are we convinced that HR departments have the right information at their fingertips to assess just what makes the optimal training course for their people and organization?

The paper provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world’s leading organizations.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

The process described in Russell Eisenstat's presentation was developed by Eisenstat and Michael Beer in partnership with Becton Dickinson, a $2.5 billion medical technology company. The presentation by James Wessel of Becton Dickinson, which follows Mr. Eisenstat's overview, outlines some of the implementation barriers encountered.

The Gaines Dog Food plant in Topeka KS is built around self‐managing work teams. It opened in 1971 and has been 20% more productive than similar, traditional plants for two decades. The Procter & Gamble Co.'s Paper Products Division implemented self‐managing teams at the same time; by 1975, it knew that the division was significantly more productive than traditionally organized plants. In the mid‐1980s, AT&T's American Transtech subsidiary cut its prices to customers by 50%, then avoided layoffs, then became even more profitable by moving to more fully self‐managing teams. And tiny Litel Communications (now LCI) used teams to cut time to process a service order from two weeks to one day.

After slicing and dicing their way to the '90s, American corporations are finding that job‐cutting is really a double‐edged sword.

The implementation of quality programmes often leads to major change within an organization. However, the nature and causes of such change are not yet understood. There is need for much more research to help determine how to implement and manage major change. Traces the development and evolution of the quality management paradigm, including the resistance of the academic community to it. This evolution was not typical of a traditional organizational research issue in two ways. First, quality programme research occurred outside areas familiar to the organizational behaviour researcher. Second, pressure was exerted by the business community to influence the business school curricula to include quality management. Research on quality management was inhibited by the major paradigmatic shift required within organizations to implement quality programmes. Lack of commonly understood definitions of quality programmes has hindered research by organizational behaviour researchers. However, by relating, even redefining, quality management as a form of organizational change, seeks to encourage organizational behaviour professionals to add their own research to this exciting field. Three subject areas, addressed in five articles in this issue, serve as examples. They include quality as a strategic choice, the team concept, and implementation of quality programmes.