Search results

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/EUM0000000002508. When citing the article, please cite: Hugh M. Cannon, Fred W. Morgan, (1990) “A Strategic Pricing Framework”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 4 Iss: 2, pp. 19 - 30.

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/EUM0000000002508. When citing the article, please cite: Hugh M. Cannon, Fred W. Morgan, (1990) “A Strategic Pricing Framework”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 4 Iss: 2, pp. 19 - 30.

Considers the consortium MBA and the in‐company MBA. Relates the theory to practical examples in several companies. Discusses the criteria for success and concludes that the company‐based MBA must form a sensible component of the organisation′s management development strategy.

Discusses pricing decision making, one of the oldest marketing topics, including several pricing methods. Presents a strategic pricing framework, developed from pricing literature. Presents rules for evaluating strategic pricing alternatives. Offers a model for marketers to explain and improve pricing decision‐making.

Explains how a process was designed and implemented to help a large, European subsidiary of a US MNC achieve its vision for management development. Covers the survey methodology, the implementation process, a change model for management development, the educational intervention, aspects of execution. Concludes the underlying intellectual framework is the concept of the development cycle which is driven by the needs of the business and for which line managers have primary responsibility for executing.

In 2000, Cañibano et al. published a literature review entitled “Accounting for Intangibles: A Literature Review”. This paper revisits the conclusions drawn in that paper. We also discuss the intervening developments in scholarly research, standard setting and practice over the past 20+ years to outline the future challenges for research into accounting for intangibles.

We conducted a literature review to identify past developments and link the findings to current accounting standard-setting developments to inform our view of the future.

Current intangibles accounting practices are conservative and unlikely to change. Accounting standard setters are more interested in how companies report and disclose the value of intangibles rather than changing how they are determined. Standard setters are also interested in accounting for new forms of digital assets and reporting economic, social, governance and sustainability issues and how these link to financial outcomes. The IFRS has released complementary sustainability accounting standards for disclosing value creation in response to the latter. Therefore, the topic of intangibles stretches beyond merely how intangibles create value but how they are also part of a firm’s overall risk and value creation profile.

There is much room academically, practically, and from a social perspective to influence the future of accounting for intangibles. Accounting standard setters and alternative standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and European Union non-financial and sustainability reporting directives, are competing complementary initiatives.

Our results reveal a window of opportunity for accounting scholars to research and influence how intangibles and other non-financial and sustainability accounting will progress based on current developments.

Presents the results of a research study, covering 177 managers. This research was designed specifically to examine the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and the Myers‐Briggs type indicator (MBTI) profiles of the sample population. Indicates that the dominant MBTI function of Intuition (and the associated MBTI profiles) is significantly and positively related to higher levels of EI. In looking at specific MBTI scales, the lack of significant relationships between high Feeling scores and EI is seen as somewhat surprising. However, this may in part be due to under‐representation of high “feeling” participants in the research study and, in part, due to methodological limitations of comparing data from normative and ipsative instruments. Provides some support overall for the proposed relationship between the MBTI and EI and also highlights potential areas for future research.

The Fred Meyer Charitable Trust, Division of Library and Information Resources for the Northwest, has funded five research projects that will demonstrate the potential of various techniques and new technologies to facilitate communications and resource sharing in the Northwest. The experience and information derived from these projects will be of value to all libraries and information centers, not just those conducting the research. The techniques and technologies being evaluated include: simultaneous remote searching, which uses inexpensive terminals and modems; a mini‐computer‐based union list and resource sharing network (INFONET); networks using facsimile machines; networks that transmit documents that have been optically scanned into bit‐map image files; and use of optical character recognition equipment to capture ASCII machine‐readable information that can be broadcast by television stations to user‐sites. Contributors of reports are: Verl Anderson, Linda Brander, Millard F. Johnson, Jr., Bruce Morton, and Steve Smith. Summary observations are provided by Joseph R. Matthews.

The three preceding articles highlight the ongoing research designed to better understand shared mental models and their role in team functioning. In some respects, research scholars have achieved an integrated view (a.k.a. shared mental models) about the field (e.g., the growing body of empirical research results underscores the important role of the shared mental model construct in effective team functioning). In other respects, our mental models have not converged. Thus, we still need additional conceptual and empirical research to advance the field (e.g., many dimensions of mental models have been identified, but no agreement exists about their validity or the completeness of the list). In this response, I use the similar, divergent, and complementary views presented in the trio of articles by myself, Cannon-Bowers (this volume), and Rentsch and Small (this volume) to demonstrate how the process of scholarship is analogous to the mental model convergence process.

The construct of shared mental models has garnered interest among team researchers as a means to explain how teams develop into highly coordinated units. McComb (this volume) contributes to this body of work by synthesizing a host of empirical findings and theoretical assertions into a model of mental model convergence. This advancement is significant, because it begins to shed light on how shared mental models may develop in teams. The present commentary takes McComb's work a step further by combining it with findings from the area of team training. The result is a set of propositions describing when various training interventions may be most beneficial to the team and the mental model convergence process, and why. These propositions are intended to stimulate further efforts to empirically validate team-training strategies as a means to foster development of shared mental models.