Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine whether the nature of leadership in the early years of the twenty‐first century as conceptualized in the research literature is valid among real organizational leaders across four global regions.

A literature review of recent scholarly articles suggested that today's leadership best practices can be sorted into six categories, or zones: Reflection, Society, Diversity, Ingenuity, People, and Business. These six zones became topics for focus groups of organizational leaders that tentatively supported the six‐zone structure and provided qualitative data used to create a 42‐item measure, the AchieveGlobal Leadership Scale (AGLS). The AGLS was then employed to examine the degree to which 899 leaders in Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the USA felt that each zone was important in meeting their organizational challenges.

The data from the 42 items were analyzed using a confirmatory factor analysis, which suggested that the six zones all triangulated on and comprised the larger construct, Leadership in the twenty‐first century. Regional differences emerged in the importance that leaders attributed to the zones, in the degree to which leaders effectively demonstrated the zones, and in the order in which leaders ranked their organizations' top business challenges.

The six‐zone model of leadership and its differences by geographic region hold potential to help leaders examine and improve their own leadership abilities.

Only 3–8 per cent of those eligible to vote in Britain have a direct shareholding in British industry. Britain's capital owners are so few that they are continually at risk of “source punishment”. The Law of Social Punishment says: “Small‐minority groups are at risk of social punishment regardless of whether they appear to be privileged or under‐privileged”. History contains many examples of both privileged and under‐privileged minorities being victimised. The vendetta against capital in Britain is harmful to the whole economy and it promotes the continuation of an out‐of‐date ideological battle between the supporters of Adam Smith and those of Karl Marx. Yet neither Smith's description of how capital is accumulated nor Marx's description is an acceptable explanation of how capital is accumulated today inside the successful joint stock company. An up‐to‐date description of how capital is accumulated leads logically on to a policy of employee participation in capital growth. Britain needs such a policy, as effected in the United States and France, to create shareholders out of employees in the more successful companies and thereby promote a greater sense of employee participation in the economic system.

Mr Peter Lenk has transferred from the Fraunhofer‐Institut to mls munich laser systems since 1 July 1987. Prior to this move, Mr Lenk was employed at the Fraunhofer Institut für Festkörpertechnologie in Munich, where he organised and set up the procedures for the Institute's thick film technology department, supervised the complete film processing for thick film technology and research to prove the authenticity of thick film resistors. Mr Lenk also supervised and conducted training in thick film technology.

This chapter examines the policy context, characteristics, and challenges of supplementary tutoring in the United States, with a specific focus on the supplemental educational services (SES) mandate of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This government-sponsored tutoring is particularly an interesting case of the United States, where privately funded tutoring is increasingly integrated into a public policy.

After introducing the details of SES program and examining major forces that influenced the introduction of this program, the chapter provides a summary on the scale of SES with a particular focus on a historical period when this program was most pervasive. It also discusses challenges of this policy and notes some recent policy changes due to NCLB reauthorization. The main sources of data for this study include two major federal reports on SES as well as the empirical studies on the effectiveness of supplementary tutoring in the United States.

An examination of policy contexts reveals that both federal and market forces contributed to the development of supplementary tutoring in the United States. While the number of tutoring providers and eligible students increased, evaluation studies have found either a small or insignificant effect of publicly funded tutoring. Communications among schools, families, and tutoring providers need to be more effective.

Although SES of the NCLB have exclusively been examined in the American context in the previous studies, this study suggests that other countries may learn from its policy context, practices, and challenges to reflect on supplementary tutoring in their own school systems.