Search results

An outline of the skills and knowledge required, and the problems to be tackled by tomorrow's managers, posing questions as to the new relationship between management development and the organisation's future planning.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the commonalities of various change and transition models developed over time to assist with and support managing organizational change.

The article provides an examination of change and transition models through a review of relevant literature and the comparison of different models.

Each change and transition model has similar methods of handling change. Their unique methods and strategies provide additional insights into possible applications to most organizations. In some cases, models could be combined to form new models to best fit the circumstances of the organization.

This comparison can assist individuals in evaluating and selecting the model based on organizational need while remembering to focus on both the physical and the emotional changes in an organization.

The article shows that human resource managers can benefit from learning the commonalities between change and transition models when considering what will work for their organization in conjunction with the review of a number of well known and relevant models.

In the history of business management thought, six idea families have predominated during the last eighty or so years — bureaucracy (Max Weber), scientific management (Frederick Winslow Taylor), classical management (Henri Fayol), human relations (Elton Mayo), neo‐human relations (Abraham Maslow). To these one can add the more recent contributions of different writers under the heading of guru theory. The first five idea families are well known, but the sixth requires explanation. Gury theory achieved prominence during the 1980s. While not yet featuring extensively in management textbooks it has received widespread attention in the financial and business press (Lorenz, 1986; Dixon, 1986; Clutterbuck and Crainer, 1988; Pierce and Newstrom, 1988; Heller, 1990). Guru theory consists of the diverse and unrelated writings of well‐known company chief executives such as Lee lacocca (Chrysler), Harold Geneen (ITT), John Harvey‐Jones (ICI) and John Sculley (Apple Computer); of management consultants like Tom Peters and Philip Crosby; and of business school academics like Michael Porter, Rosabeth Moss Kanter and Henry Mintzberg. Since their contributions are so heterogeneous, and as the writings draw so much of their authority from the individual authors themselves, the adopted label is felt to be appropriate.

Reviews the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoints 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.

Organization Development (OD) is one of the newer HR buzzwords, driven by a variety of business needs such as leadership development, change management, internal communication and business process re‐engineering. Text book definitions of OD make it sound as if it should be a lot more systematic and methodical than it is in practice. While OD writers such as Warner Burke, Richard Beckhard and Ed Schein define specific phases of organization development, the reality within an organization is different, with the HR or OD practitioner having to work more opportunistically.

Provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world's leading organizations.Originality/valueThe 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.

We are all familiar with the fable of the blind man's perception of the shape of an elephant. Management development, in its short 20 year history, has had at least as many different perceptions of its shape. From these different perceptions have emerged very different programmes, activities, structures, roles, practices and even many professions.

Ida Hoos' study and update provide a useful and thoughtful contribution to the ongoing debates and discussions as to whether the computer will de‐humanize all of us and society, or whether it will free us to greater things.

This article tackles the problems encountered when introducing a management by objectives system into an organisation. It outlines a checklist which can help the practising manager achieve a smooth transition from “what was” to “what will be”.

This paper aims to locate its appreciation of the life and work of Arie de Geus within the context of developments in approaches to management practice, education and learning since the Second World War. It emphasizes the important influence of top management-led applications of social science (Beckhard) and the impact of crises upon planning and the generation of memories of the future for effective organizational learning. The paper also describes the roles of learning from experience and of reflective practice in shaping de Geus’ contribution.

The approach traces the development of de Geus' career and thinking from Shell cost accountant, to top line manager in three continents, to Head of Shell Group Planning, to prize winning author, to global adviser to the World bank, etc., and as an inspirational speaker as champion of the learning organization.

The paper acknowledges Arie de Geus as coining the phrase “The Learning Organization” together with his role in the foundation and development of the Society for Organizational Learning (SOL) and as an international champion of young people's learning through the processes of the Finnish Team Academy model.

Arie de Geus was an exemplar of reflective practice and applied learning. As such, his contribution might be considered as that of a sage rather than as a guru.

The paper endeavours to emphasize the importance of the role of both the internal and external contexts for effective organizational learning, suggesting that the contribution of Arie de Geus to the field exemplifies this importance.