Search results

A referral channel is a special type of information channel, one that is missing in standard discussions of the promotional mix. In a referral channel, one firm is in a position to give information about another firm′s products to potential customers of the latter. Qualitatively different types of referral channel exist and must be managed by different forms of co‐operative strategy. Points out the significance of referral channels to a firm′s environmental analysis and business‐unit strategic planning.

Effective administrative authority involves willing rather than forced compliance; hence, a major concern of school principals should be to find strategies to increase the zone of acceptance among teachers. This research investigates the leadership behavior of principals and the personal characteristics of teachers as both are related to elementary teachers' professional zone of acceptance. Data from 46 elementary schools support the hypothesis that a large professional zone of acceptance for elementary teachers is nurtured by a principal's leadership style that combines both structure and consideration. The personal characteristics of individual teachers, however, were not as strongly related to zone of acceptance as predicted.

THIS scheme of exact classification has now been long enough upon trial to justify the publication of a few explanatory notes, adjustments, and revisions which may be useful to present and future users of the system. For an entirely new scheme, which to some extent broke fresh ground, its reception has been extremely kind and flattering, and although it has not escaped criticism, nothing has appeared which has been anything but reasonable and helpful. A surprising circumstance has been that, notwithstanding the very controversial nature of much of the subject, so few points of difference have appeared. These are all more or less directed against the mere placing of certain topics and do not to any extent reflect upon the theory or structure of the system as a whole. One mistake has been made, however, of a more important nature, but this must have arisen either through misapprehension or carelessness. It has been assumed that the Subject Classification claims to be thoroughly scientific, and that each class is arranged in a logical and evolutionary order, so as to modulate or merge naturally into its successor. Any modest claim which may have been made to an attempted logical order is invariably qualified by a statement in the “Introduction” to the effect that such perfect order is only to be expected to a very limited extent. On page eight it is stated that—“The departments of human knowledge are so numerous, their intersections so great, their changes so frequent, and their variety so confusing, that it is impossible to show that they proceed from one source or germ, or that they can be arranged so that each enquirer will find the complete literature of his special subject at one fixed place.” All through the tables and the introduction the same kind of limitation is insisted upon, and it can only be due to misunderstanding to say that I have made such a preposterous claim to sequential perfection. No librarian who has attempted to compile a system of exact classification would ever dream of claiming that he did more than get as near as possible to an ideal arrangement in accordance with his basal plan.

In this paper we question whether we know enough about organizational theorizing to be able transfer it to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries. The researchers in general see that our organizational theorizing is heavily contingent on the social institutions of Western society. While we think of the CIS situation as one of political, economic, and social collapse, it is really more a matter of institutional collapse. Thus, given the contingencies noted above, it is not at all clear why we expect our organizational theories to apply to them. We propose an institutional analysis at three levels: universal, contingent, and developmental. At the universal level, there is no difference between the institutions of the CIS and the West. At the contingent level, the institutional fabric differs in ways that can be accommodated. At the developmental level, the most crucial, the CIS will have to develop their own new social institutions before their economies can gather momentum. We argue that such institutions are built up as organizational teams work on unresolved problems and build up the knowledge that is gradually institutionalized outside the originating organizations.

For several decades, scholars have called for “open” or “living systems” approaches to the study of complex organizations. These approaches were especially characterized by the presence of various nonlinear dynamics. Unfortunately, the formal mathematics required to capture these dynamics did not become widely available until the recent mass computing revolution. Meanwhile, these realms of mathematics, known variously as “catastrophes,” “chaos,” and more recently as “complexity,” have caught hold in the physical, biological, and cognitive sciences. This article contends that it is now time for these recent advances in the sciences of nonlinearity to emerge full scale in the social realm as well. However, thus far, this movement is much more metaphorical than it is methodological. Thus, a review of some policy and management applications is undertaken. Of particular interest are those where the uses of phase plane analysis and genetic algorithms portend significant practical import.

This chapter comments on organizational learning research produced by scholars who studied or taught at Stanford University during the last third of the 20th century. Challenging classical learning models, Stanford scholars have demonstrated how cognitive and social processes attenuate connections between environmental action and the lessons learned from it. They have demonstrated how goals change over time as a partial function of prior performance and the importance of temporal processes in learning rates. They have shown how rules and routines encode only imperfectly lessons learned from organizational action. Their research has deepened and enriched our understanding of organizational learning.

It is apparently becoming the fashion among certain types of self‐sufficient persons in this country to endeavour to bring discredit upon the scientific expert, and—whenever the practice can be indulged in with impunity—to snub and to insult him as far as possible. While this course of procedure is particularly to be observed when the expert is called upon to give evidence in a Court of Law, or to explain technical points before some highly inexpert body, it is not only in these circumstances that he is subjected to misrepresentation, discourtesy, and downright insult. Whenever a case occurs which appears to afford pabulum capable of being twisted into shape for the purpose, certain newspapers— generally, we are glad to say, of the lower class—are invariably ready to publish cheap sneers at science and scientific men, frequently accompanied by insulting suggestions. Other journals of a better class do not indulge in abuse and insulting suggestions, but confine themselves to lecturing the expert or experts with all that assurance which is characteristic of blatant ignorance. Accusations of incompetence and of culpable negligence are common in the gutter Press and in some so‐called Courts of Justice. Even suggestions of bad faith and of failure to honourably discharge duties undertaken are sometimes to be met with. It cannot be supposed that the reason for all this is to be found in the conduct of some very few persons who, in the eyes of all right‐thinking people, have brought discredit on themselves by appearing as “ advocate‐witnesses ” to defend the indefensible. At any rate, the conduct of such individuals affords no justification for tarring everybody with the same brush. The hostile, acidly‐cantankerous, and frequently grossly insolent attitude adopted by certain persons and in certain quarters towards those experts whose duties are of a public character and connected with legal or semi‐legal proceedings, is due to a reason which is not far to seek. It is due, in the first place, to the disgraceful ignorance in regard to scientific matters, even of the most elementary kind, which unhappily pervades all classes of the community;' and, secondly, to that form of jealousy peculiar to the small and mean mind which detests and kicks at anything and everything beyond its power of comprehension. When apparently contradictory evidence is given by scientific witnesses—appearing on opposite sides in a case—it is obviously far more easy and satisfactory to shriek about the “ differing of doctors ” than to admit that one's own miserable ignorance prevents one from seeing the points and from ascertaining whether there is any real contradiction or not. It is far more convenient to suggest that the public analyst, for instance, does not know what he is about, has made some absurd mistake, or has been guilty of scandalous negligence, than to admit that one does not understand his certificate owing to one's own defective education or inferior intellectual capacity.

This special “Anbar Abstracts” issue of Education + Training is split into four sections covering abstracts under the following headings: Further education; Higher education; Managemetn education; Generald education and training.