Search results

The purpose of this study is twofold. The first purpose is to inform faculty who are thinking of becoming a department head about the challenges they face if they choose to pursue a department head opportunity. The second purpose is to provide insight into the leadership of the accounting departments by looking at various workload aspects of department heads. The authors surveyed accounting department heads from programs with the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accounting accreditation, AACSB business only accreditation, and non-AACSB accreditation. Surveys were sent to 918 individuals listed as the leader of an accounting program in the 2016–2017 Hasselback Accounting Directory with 144 individuals responding (15.7% response rate). In addition to the workload of the department head in the areas of teaching, research, and service, the study analyzed the major challenges and difficulties the department head faces. The study also sought responses from survey participants on additional issues such as the benefits of AACSB accreditation and compensation.

This chapter reports on the pilot of an innovative approach to business education that was instituted at a small university in the United States. In the program, students were divided into three learning cohorts. Each group was encouraged to learn as a community while taking three integrated classes. Teams competed within their cohort and cohorts competed against other cohorts. Students took introductory managerial accounting, introductory computer information systems and introductory management in the first semester and financial management, operations management and an introductory marketing course in the second semester. The program was designed to bridge the gap between theory and practice by helping students gain a better appreciation of how business functions are integrated. After the first semester, an anonymous survey revealed some useful insights that could be incorporated to enhance such programs. The structure of the program, its benefits, limitations and insights from the survey are reported in this chapter.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

Each of the four objectives can be applied within the military training environment. Military training often requires that soldiers achieve specific levels of performance or proficiency in each phase of training. For example, training courses impose entrance and graduation criteria, and awards are given for excellence in military performance. Frequently, training devices, training media, and training evaluators or observers also directly support the need to diagnose performance strengths and weaknesses. Training measures may be used as indices of performance, and to indicate the need for additional or remedial training.

School-level leaders should not be expected to be mired in emotional turmoil and sacrifice their own health, happiness and well-being to do their jobs effectively. While the emotional aspects of school-level leadership have continued to evolve and become increasingly complex since the turn of the twenty-first century, the supports available to these individuals remain outdated, ineffective, and moribund. If mentoring, anonymous telephone support lines and other ‘old school’ approaches for supporting school leaders were still effective, they would not be struggling to deal with the emotional aspects of their work and workload. Further, there is a need to provide ‘just-in-time’ supports that are available to school-level leaders when concerns arise. Absent structural changes, isolated and individualized approaches to self-care cannot mitigate the challenges principals face or the physical, mental and emotional toll associated with their work and workload. Communal strategies and policy levers are recommended in an effort to go beyond mindfulness and other (potentially) individualistic and neoliberal approaches to self-care. This chapter also explores how principal preparation programmes and other formal professional learning opportunities are an untapped resource in terms of strengthening school-level leaders' emotional regulation capacity and building a general appreciation for the emotional aspects of school-level leadership.

The essential investments in new product development (NPD) made by industrial companies entail effective management of NPD activities. In this context, performance measurement is one of the means that can be employed in the pursuit of effectiveness.

We examine and compare current practices in teaching preparation in U.S. accounting, finance, management, and economics doctoral programs.

We conduct an anonymous online survey of the pedagogical training practices experienced by Ph.D. students in accounting, finance, management, and economics programs in the United States.

Results indicate that accounting, finance, and management perform similarly with respect to providing doctoral students with first-hand teaching experience and requiring for-credit courses in teacher training. Accounting and management appear to utilize doctoral students as teaching assistants less than the other disciplines. A lower proportion of accounting doctoral students indicate that their program requires proof of English proficiency prior to teaching, and pedagogical mentoring is rare across disciplines. Accounting and management doctoral students feel more prepared to teach undergraduate courses compared to finance and economics students. However, all disciplines indicate a relative lack of perceived preparation to teach graduate courses.

This study provides empirical evidence of the current practices in pedagogical training of accounting, finance, management, and economics doctoral students.

The results highlight several areas where accounting could possibly improve with regard to pedagogical training in doctoral programs. In particular we suggest (1) changes in the teaching evaluation process, (2) development of teaching mentorships, (3) implementing a teaching portfolio requirement, and (4) incorporation of additional methods of assisting non-native English speakers for teaching duties.

The study fills a gap in the literature regarding the pedagogical training in accounting doctoral programs.

The history of continuous improvement, particularly requirements to close the feedback loop, was explored through an analysis of experiences at St. Cloud State University (SCSU). A method for generating evidence of the use of assessment data is provided. Several program improvements tied to this example were cited, including increasing the number of program area reports, adding to the number of qualitative studies, and strengthening advisement. Difficulties encountered with the system included institutionalizing the approach, response rates, and workload issues.

In this chapter, I propose a model for how school-level leaders manage their emotions. This model consists of six components. School-level leaders typically have little direct influence over the first component of the model, which are the socio-contextual factors in the schools, school communities and jurisdictions in which they work. A school-level leader's identity, sense of self and their personal characteristics comprise the second component of the model. The third component of the model is a multi-directional arrow demonstrating connections and interactions between the socio-contextual factors and a school-level leader's sense of self. Factors that heighten school-level leaders' emotional experiences in schools are considered as part of the fourth component of this model for school-level leaders' emotional regulation. The fifth component are the emotional regulation strategies school-level leaders use to manage emotions that emerge as part of their workday, while influence of supports and professional learning are considered as part of the sixth component, Finally, the model also accounts for the chain reactions and feedback loops that can occur when an individual utilizes an emotional regulation strategy that is unsuccessful. Those processes produce new emotions that must be regulated using similar, or different, emotional regulation strategy(ies).