Search results1 – 10 of 52
This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/eb053600. When citing the article, please cite: Gillian Stamp, (1986), “Management Styles”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 7 Iss: 3, pp. 27 - 32.
In this article I shall endeavour to show how the practical application of a classic theory of work has led to a totally new approach to the selection of personnel and to the appraisal of individual potential, both in new or expanding industries and in old or contracting industries. Whatever the setting, the approach has achieved the same result: a more efficient organisation and better job satisfaction and career opportunities for its employees.
Management style is too general a concept and must be extended by the consideration of both level and type of capability in the assessment of current competence and the prediction of potential. Context and its significance for the expression of different capabilities must be understood if more subtle and accurate typologies are to be developed. These would make it possible to match people's strengths at any given time to appropriate areas of work. Studies on style are summarised, and a model of individual differences which discriminates two separate dimensions of style is described. A model of organisational structure is presented which allows the direct matching of person and task and future matching as the person's capabilities grow.
Argues that to survive and prosper in the political, social andeconomic climate of the 1990s and beyond, organizations must find a newway of achieving viability by…
Argues that to survive and prosper in the political, social and economic climate of the 1990s and beyond, organizations must find a new way of achieving viability by aligning purposes, people, strategies and structures. Four linked procedures offer a proven way of contributing to viability by viewing the contribution of individuals in the light of organizational purpose. Career Path Appreciation (CPA) is a one‐to‐one interview that allows a trained practitioner to arrive, in two to three hours, at a view about a person′s current and likely future capability to make effective decisions. This is shared first with the respondent and then with the organization. Career Path Mapping (CPM) enables the understanding offered by CPA to be used for the mutual benefit of organization and individual. The Work Journal (WJ) enables people who have recently moved to a new level of responsibility to set down their thoughts and actions in a systematic format that encourages reflection. Organization Mapping (OM) offers an optimal model, indicating where energy can be effectively focused to bring about lasting change, taking into account purpose, patterns of communication and culture, and indicating the relationship between individual capability and the way in which work is structured at seven different levels.
The mutual wellbeing of individuals and organisations is essential in rapidly changing environments where sound decision making is at a premium. Although elusive, wellbeing can be sustained by a systematic and continuous review of the challenges faced and the growth of the capabilities of the people who engage with them. The article describes a procedure called Career Path Appreciation that focuses on the relationship between the individual and the organisation and, in so doing, contributes to their mutual wellbeing without compromise on either side.
One of the most persistent problems faced by managers in organisations of any scale is how to make decisions about the personal competence of their subordinates. Are there any criteria which can help managers to make judgements about the level of work which subordinates are currently capable of carrying, the growth of their capability and the point which they will reach at the height of their powers?
In an earlier article I made some preliminary observations about the web of connections between individuals and the organisations in which they are employed, and in…
In an earlier article I made some preliminary observations about the web of connections between individuals and the organisations in which they are employed, and in particular about the effect of these connections on the career paths of women(1). In the present article, the earlier ideas are extended to consider the more general issues of the effect of the web of connections on employees who are not members of the dominant group in the organisation. In considering such employees I will examine some of the difficulties that surround the realisation of their potential, with particular reference to facing the responsibilities and avoiding the individual and organisational costs of being consistently under‐ or over‐used.
The aims of this (mainly) conceptual paper are twofold: first, to define “capability” as used within Bioss (what used to be the Brunel Institute of Organization and Social Studies), which is referred to as “complexipacity” elsewhere in this issue – and second, to describe the capability of two young people whose teachers and parents did not recognise their strengths.
Presents examples of conditions that make the expression of capability difficult, and typically include rules applied too rigidly or too bureaucratically, irrespective of the capability of the person, and also when there is a mismatch between the capability of the person wielding authority (teacher, boss, head of family) and the person who is the object of that authority (pupil, subordinate, children). That mismatch occurs when the capability of the authority‐holder is less than that of the people for whom she/he is responsible.
What is meant by “capability” is the ability to handle complexity, to juggle many variables at once, and to handle uncertainty and risk. It is clear that the potential level of capability is set at an early age, although that level may not be reached until the individual is past retirement age. The theory, evidence and practice all suggest that people vary in their capability; they develop at different rates; they mature to different levels. But everyone's capability continues to develop over time.
The paper shows that capability certainly exists in young people, whereas wisdom develops later. Capability cannot be taught, but that one can create conditions that allow it to be expressed, and thereby enhanced.