Implementing Strategic Decisions and Analysing Effects

Implementing Strategic Decisions and Analysing Effects Although formulating a consistent strategy is a difficult task for any management team, making that strategy work implementing it throughout the organization is even more difficult (Hrebiniak, 2006). A myriad of factors can potentially affect the process by which strategic plans are turned into organizational action. Unlike strategy formulation, strategy implementation is often seen as something of a craft, rather than a science, and its research history has previously been described as fragmented and eclectic (Noble, 1999b). It is thus not surprising that, after a comprehensive strategy or single strategic decision has been formulated, significant difficulties usually arise during the subsequent implementation process. The best-formulated strategies may fail to produce superior performance for the firm if they are not successfully implemented, as Noble (1999b) notes. Results from several surveys have confirmed this view: An Economist survey found that a discouraging 57 percent of firms were unsuccessful at executing strategic initiatives over the past three years, according to a survey of 276 senior operating executives in 2004 (Allio, 2005). According to the White Paper of Strategy Implementation of Chinese Corporations in 2006, strategy implementation has become the most significant management challenge which all kinds of corporations face at the moment. The survey reported in that white paper indicates that 83 percent of the surveyed companies failed to implement their strategy smoothly, and only 17 percent felt that they had a consistent strategy implementation process. Modern organizations operate in an increasingly complex environment and the magnitude of the consequences of decisions at the strategic level demands high quality responses from the management. The ever-changing and turbulent internal and external environments of the organization demands extreme sensitivity from the management in their reactions towards change. This often requires rapid response and the consequence of one course of action could be dramatically different from an alternative course of action. Strategic decisions are a reflection of the a ttitude, values and expectations of the decision-makers at the top level. They have a long term effect on the direction and future activity of the organization, and have resource implications, affecting decisions at the lower levels and initiating a wave of other, often lesser decisions (Hickson et al. 1986). The uncertainties and complexities of strategic decisions direct the decision makers to reduce the infinitely large problem into a manageable one. This conversion to a manageable model of reality inherently involves a great number of assumptions, many of which rely on the judgement of the decision maker. But the scale of the complexity and variety of variables surrounding the decision is such that some of the assumptions are ill-defined and possibly wrong. To combat these problems the managers categorize the uncertain decisions into a number of criteria: Laplace, insufficient reason to believe otherwise; Minimax, making the best out of worst possible conditions; Maximax, the best out of the best alternatives; Savage, the best of the regrets for not taking the right actions; and Hurwicz, giving a range of attitudes from optimistic to most pessimistic (Turban 1993). The choice of the approach is linked to decision-makers conservatism. This question is crucial since decisions, especially those of a strategic nature, tend to have widespread effects on organizational members, processes, and structure. This paper is concerned with one foundation of strategic decision making: More specifically, we aim to empirically address the why, what, how and where of this process. Thus, we conceive a firms external environment to be a source of information (Aldrich and Mindlin, 1978) but also its internal environment, sometimes referred to as invironment. To scan the environment in order to make better-informed decisions (Choo, 1996) is an important task on the corporate agenda. Environmental scanning, whether or not it is referred to as such (Frishammar, 2002), may be defined as the activity of acquiring information (Aguilar, 1967, p. 1) and is the method by which managers perceive events and trends (Hambrick, 1982). Acquiring information is imperative in ascertaining environmental change and has implications for strategic decision making (Lozada and Calantone, 1997). In this study, strategic decisions are concerned with long-term direction and are normally about trying to achieve some advanta ge for an organization (Johnson and Scholes, 1999). A decision is, in accordance with Mintzberg et al. (1976), defined as a set of actions and dynamic factors beginning with the identification of a stimulus for action and ending with a specific commitment to action. Strategic simply means important, in terms of the actions taken, the resources committed, or the precedents set (Mintzberg et al., 1976). Formulating strategy is difficult. Making strategy work executing or implementing it throughout the organization is even more difficult. Thompson Strickland (2003) have stressed that the strategy-implementing/strategy-executing task is the most complicated and time-consuming part of strategic management (cited in Schaap, 2006). CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Strategic Decision Making By definition, decision making is the process through which managers identify organizational problems and attempt to resolve them (Bartol Martin, 1994). Crook, Ketchen, and Snow (2003) stated that the purpose of strategic management research is to help find ways to improve their performance. Further, strategic decision makings are those that determine the overall direction of an enterprise and its ultimate viability in light of the predictable, the unpredictable, and the unknowable changes that may occur in its most important surrounding environments. They ultimately shape the true goals of the enterprise (Mintzberg Quian, 1991). Pearce and Robinson (1997) underlined the characteristics of strategic decision making as corporate level decisions (greater risk, cost, profit potential; greater need for flexibility and longer time horizons), functional level decisions (implement the overall strategy formulated at the corporate and business levels), action oriented operational issues; sh ort range and low risk. Modest cost; dependent on available resources, and business level decision (bridge decisions at the corporate and functional levels; which is less risky, costly, and potential profitable than corporate level decisions, but more risky, costly, and potentially profitable then functional level decisions). Tatum et al. (2003) stated that managers make day-to-day decisions, or resolve immediate problems. They also elaborated that managers have different decision styles due to the amount of information, number of alternatives, and attempt to integrate and coordinate multiple sources of input. Vroom (2003) in his study quoted Nutt (2002) on a study of 400 decisions that had been made by managers in medium to large organizations in the USA, Canada and Europe. Surprisingly, half of the decisions failed; either never implemented or subsequently unraveled during the two-year observation period. Nutt (2002, in Vroom, 2003) stated that effective decision making is not merely a matter of decision quality but also of ensuring that the decision will have the necessary support and commitment for its effective implementation. Nevertheless, all strategic decision making must go through the decision making process in order for managers to come up with a good decision. 2.2 Decision Making Process Decision makers and managers need to allow themselves to be in the process of decision making. This decision making process will give the opportunity to decision makers and managers to come up with the alternatives, evaluate each alternatives, and select the best alternative or solution to the problem. Decision making process comprise of the steps the decision maker has to arrive at his choice. The process a manager uses to make decisions has a significant impact on the quality of those decisions (Certo, 2003). Moreover, Provan (1989) stated that people who participate in the strategic decision making process are at a high level in their organization, are competent, and are reasonably intelligent and articulate. Strategic decision making process can be and is influenced by those major groups in the organization that are most powerful and that a rational consideration of external environmental factors may have little direct impact on how strategies are actually formulated and implemen ted (Provan, 1989). Basi (1988) stated that type of decision is a function of administrative level, and the style is a function of organizational culture. Administrative level is classified as institutional or executive or upper level, organizational or managerial or middle level, and technical or lower level. Meanwhile organizational culture is known as paternalistic, bureaucratic, and synergistic. Meanwhile, Nutt (1976) indicated in his study on the decision making models. He discussed 6 models of decision making of which bureaucratic model, normative decision theory, behavioral decision theory, group decision making, equilibrium-conflict resolution, and open system decision making. Nutt (1976) also discussed on the limits and ways to select the appropriate model for decision making for organization. As such organizations perform unique functions; the levels identified were technological or primary level, managerial level, and institutional level. Thus, factors which characterize the decision making e nvironment will stipulate the appropriate model that can be optimally used (Nutt, 1976). 2.3 Approaches to Strategy Implementation There are different factors that affect strategy implementation. These factors can be divided into soft, hard, and mixed factors. Soft factors (or people-oriented factors) include the people or executors of the strategy, the communication activities (content and style issues) as well as the closely related implementation tactics, the consensus about and commitment to the strategy, while the hard (or institutional) factors include the organizational structure, the administrative systems. The way in which the strategy was developed and articulated (strategy formulation) contains hard and soft factors alike and is thus considered a mixed factor. Relationships among different units/departments and different strategy levels also is treated as a mixed factor. In the following paragraphs we discuss these factors and how they affect strategic implementation of decisions. 2.3.1 Strategy Formulation It is clear that a poor or vague strategy can limit implementation efforts dramatically. Good execution cannot overcome the shortcomings of a bad strategy or a poor strategic planning effort (Hrebiniak, 2006). Several studies mention the fact that the kind of strategy that is developed (Alexander, 1985; Allio, 2005) and the actual process of strategy formulation, namely, how a strategy is developed (Kim Mauborgne, 1991, 1993; Singh, 1998) will influence the effect of implementation. Alexander (1985) believes that the need to start with a formulated strategy that involves a good idea or concept is mentioned most often in helping promote successful implementation. As Allio (2005) notes, good implementation naturally starts with good strategic input: the soup is only as good as the ingredients (Allio, 2005). Whether a strategy itself is consistent and fitting or not is a key question for successful strategy implementation, but even a consistent strategy cannot be all things to all peop le. Bantel (1997) suggests that particular product/market strategies are effective at achieving particular performance goals to the exclusion of others. One of his conclusions is that synergies between strategy types and implementation. 2.3.2 Relationships among Different Units/Departments and Different Strategy Levels Several studies treat institutional relationships among different units/ departments and different strategy levels as a significant factor that affects the outcome of strategy implementation (Walker Ruekert, 1987; Gupta, 1987; Slater Olson, 2001; Chimhanzi, 2004; Chimhanzi Morgan, 2005). Walker Ruekert (1987) divide business strategy behaviors into three types: prospectors, differentiated defenders and low cost defenders. These distinctions are based on the strategy categories introduced by Miles Snow (1978; prospectors, defenders, analyzers, reactors) and by Porter (1980; overall cost leadership, differentiation and focus). Walker Ruekert stipulate that corporate-business unit relationships, inter-functional structures and processes, marketing policies and processes may all significantly influence business strategy implementation. Three aspects of the corporate-business unit relationship are especially likely to affect a units success in implementing a particular strategy: bus iness unit autonomy, sharing programs and synergies across SBUs, as well as control and reward systems. In addition, functional competencies, allocation of resources, decision-making participation and influence, inter-functional conflict and coordination may have vastly different effects on the implementation of different kinds of strategies. Walker and Ruekert also assume that decision-making and coordination structures in the marketing department, and marketing policies and programs within the business unit, affect the performance of different business strategies in different ways. Chimhanzi (2004) suggests that cross-unit working relationships have a key role to play in the successful implementation of marketing decisions. Implementation effectiveness is affected negatively by conflict and positively by communication and specifically, interpersonal, not written. In turn, these interdepartmental dynamics are affected by senior management support, joint reward systems, and informal integration. Chimhanzi (2004) also points out that the marketing and RD interface remains the most extensively researched dyad within the specific context of the new product development (NPD) process. Chimhanzi provides a multitude of references to such studies in his 2004 article. Other relationships that have received empirical attention, albeit to a lesser extent, include marketing, and accounting, finance, manufacturing, engineering, quality, and sales. There are also those studies, according to Chimhanzi, that have not focused on dyadic and multiple relations, but rather on marke ting as the only one of many departments within a network of relationships. Chimhanzi Morgans (2005) findings indicate that firms devoting attention to the alignment of marketing and human resources are able to realize significantly greater successes in their strategy implementation. Specifically, these findings imply that marketing managers should seek to improve the relationship with their HR colleagues by emphasizing two of the process-based dimensions: joint reward systems and written communication. 2.3.3 Executors Executors are comprised of top management, middle management, lower management and non-management. Effectiveness of strategy implementation is, at least in part, affected by the quality of people involved in the process (Govindarajan, 1989). Here, quality refers to skills, attitudes, capabilities, experiences and other characteristics of people required by a specific task or position (Peng Litteljohn, 2001). Viseras, Baines, and Sweeney (2005) group 36 key success factors into three research categories: people, organization, systems in the manufacturing environment. Their intriguing findings indicate that strategy implementation success depends crucially on the human or people side of project management, and less on organization and systems related factors. Similarly, Harrington (2006) finds that a higher level in total organizational involvement during strategy implementation had positive effects on the level of implementation success, firm profits and overall firm success. Next to these overall findings regarding the who of strategy implementation, we will now review the individual groups of strategy executors at different hierarchical levels. 2.3.3.1 Top management Top management refers to senior-level leaders including presidents, owners, and other high ranking executives (CEO, CFO, COO etc.) and senior-level managers. Several researchers have emphasized the effect of top management on strategic decision implementation (Hrebiniak Snow, 1982; Smith Kofron, 1996; Schmidt Brauer, 2006; Schaap, 2006). Most of them point out the important figurehead role of top management in the process of strategy implementation. Schmidt and Brauer (2006), for example, take the board as one of the key subjects of strategy implementation and discuss how to assess board effectiveness in guiding strategy execution and decision making. Hrebiniak and Snow (1982) find that the process of interaction and participation among the top management team typically leads to greater commitment to the firmà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s goals and strategies. This, in turn, serves to ensure the successful implementation of the firmà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s chosen strategy (cited in Dess Priem, 1995). Smith and Kofron (1996) believe that top managers play a critical role in the implementation not just the formulation of strategy. 2.3.3.2 Middle management We can divide the viewpoints and approaches regarding middle managements effect on strategy implementation into three categories: The first one emphasizes the match of strategy and middle managers leadership style (Gupta Govindarajan, 1984; Guth MacMillan, 1986; Govindarajan, 1989; Judge Stahl, 1995; Heracleous, 2000). This viewpoint assumes that personality is the primary determinant of strategy implementation actions. The second perspective considers the effect of context on behavior (Waldersee Sheather, 1996). The third one analyzes the impact of relationships between top management and middle management on strategy implementation (Wooldridge Floyd, 1990, 1992b, 1997; Qi, 2005). There are also studies that have examined the ambiguous relationships between top management and middle management in the context of strategy implementation: On the one hand, middle managers expect direction and support from their top management. If they receive this guidance, then they will provide s upport for the strategy in return. One of the key factors determining their level of support is their demographic situation (such as age, gender, educational background, and business experience) (Qi, 2005). On the other hand, top management should expect middle-level managers to question strategic decisions (Wooldridge Floyd, 1990). Middle managers expect top management direction, but frequently feel that they are in a better position to start and evaluate alternative courses of action. Wooldridge Floyd (1992b) consequently classify middle management involvement in strategy into four types: championing alternatives, synthesizing information, facilitating adaptability and implementing deliberate strategy. The first two represent upward forms of involvement, while the last two are downward forms. Floyd Wooldridge (1997) investigate the relationships between middle managersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸ formal position, their strategic influence and organizational performance. 2.3.3.3 Lower management and non-management Unfortunately, few authors study the impact of lower management and non-management on strategy implementation. Gronroos (1985) believes that an organization must first persuade its employees about the importance of the strategy before turning to customers (cited in: Rapert Lynch Suter, 1996). Alexander (1985) suggests that there are many problems which over half of the corporations experienced frequently, such as the involved employees have insufficient capabilities to perform their jobs, lower-level employees are inadequately trained, and departmental managers provide inadequate leadership and direction. These three are the most frequent strategy implementation problems in relation to human resource. Line-level employees may use delay or prevent attempts toward change that they find particularly threatening or disagreeable. Nutt (1986) suggests that managerial tactics and leadership style can play a crucial role in overcoming the lower-level obstructionism that is prevalent (to so me degree) in many implementation efforts. Strategic decisions are nevertheless formulated by senior-level managers of the firm and then administratively imposed on lower-level management and non-management employees with little consideration of the resulting functional-level perceptions (Nutt, 1987). If lower-level management and non- management personnel are not aware of the same information, or if information must pass through several (management) layers in the organization, consensus regarding that information may never come about. Thus, the lack of shared knowledge with lower-level management and non-management employees creates a barrier to successful strategy implementation (Noble, 1999b). 2.3.4 Communication Forman and Argenti (2005) rightly note that, although an entire discipline is devoted to the study of organizational strategy, including strategy implementation; little attention has been given to the links between communication and strategy. But Forman and Argenti also note that business communication researchers have become increasingly interested in the contribution of corporate communication to a companys ability to create and disseminate its strategy in the last decade. However, very few authors have investigated the link between corporate communication and strategy, and when they have their focus has primarily been on how corporate communication affects the firms relationship with its various stakeholders. At least, numerous researchers have already emphasized the importance of communication for the process of strategy implementation (Alexander, 1985; Rapert Wren, 1998; Peng Litteljohn, 2001; Heide Grà ¸nhaug Johannessen, 2002; Rapert Velliquette Garretson, 2002; Forma n Argenti, 2005; Schaap, 2006). Rapert and Wren (1998) find that organizations where employees have easy access to management through open and supportive communication climates tend to outperform those with more restrictive communication environments. 2.3.5 Implementation tactics Bourgeois à Ã‚ ¨ and Brodwin (1984) examine five process approaches used to advance strategy implementation: Commander model, Change model, Collaborative model, Cultural model, Crescive model. The first approach addresses strategic position only, and should guide the CEO in charting a firmà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s future. The CEO can use economic and competitive analyses to plan resource allocations to achieve his goals. The change model emphasizes how the organizational structure, incentive compensation, control systems and so forth can be used to facilitate the implementation of a strategy. The collaborative model concentrates on group decision-making at a senior level and involves top management in the formulation process to ensure commitment. The fourth approach tries to implement strategy through the use of a corporate culture. The final approach draws on managersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸ inclinations to want to develop new opportunities as see them in the course of their day-to-day management. The first three models assume implementation as after-the-fact. This implies that the number of strategy developers is few and that the rest of the organization is somehow manipulated or cajoled into implementation. For the latter two models, most of the energy is used for strategy formulation and the strategy requires relatively little effort in its implementation. Lehner (2004) takes implementation tactics as genuine organizational behavior based on the assumption that implementation in general is dependent on the environment, and various strategic and organizational variables. 2.3.6 Consensus Many authors focus on the role of consensus for strategy implementation (Nielsen, 1983; Floyd Wooldridge, 1992a; Dess Priem, 1995; Rapert Lynch Suter, 1996; Noble, 1999b; Dooley Fryxell Judge, 2000). Nielsen (1983) contends that firms must achieve consensus both within and outside their organization in order to successfully implement business strategies (Noble, 1999b). The consensus about a companys strategy may differ across levels: If members of the organization are not aware of the same information, or if information passes through different layers in an organization, a lower level of consensus may result. This lack of shared understanding may create obstacles to successful strategy implementation (Noble, 1999b). Floyd and Wooldridge (1992a) label the gulf between strategies conceived by top management and awareness at lower levels as implementation gap. They define strategic consensus as the agreement among top, middle-, and operating-level managers on the fundamental priorities of the organization. Consensus, in their approach, has four levels: strong consensus, blind devotion, informed skepticism and weak consensus. Floyd and Wooldridge argue that strong consensus exists when managers have both, a common understanding of, and a common commitment to their strategy. If, however, managers are committed to something, but do not share an understanding what that something is (they are well-intentioned but ill-informed) blind devotion is the likely result. If, by contrast, managers share an understanding of their strategy, but are not really committed to it, they are well informed yet unwilling to act. Floyd and Wooldridge call this realistic condition à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¾informed skepticismà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸. Of course when neither shared understanding nor commitment is high, weak consensus is the likely result. Improving understanding and commitment can close this dangerous implementation gap. 2.3.7 Commitment Shared understanding without commitment may result in counter effort and negatively affect performance (Wooldridge Floyd, 1989, cited in Rapert, Lynch and Suter, 1996). Some authors take shared understanding as a commitment. MacMillan Guth (1985) and McDermott Boyer (1999) all think that the shared understanding of middle management and those at the operational level to the top management teams strategic goals is of critical importance to effective implementation (Rapert Velliquette Garretson, 2002). Strategy implementation efforts may fail if the strategy does not enjoy support and commitment by the majority of employees and middle management. This may be the case if they were not consulted during the development phase (Heracleous, 2000). Alexander (1985) thinks obtaining employee commitment and involvement can promote successful strategy implementation Some CEOs believe that one way to accomplish this is to involve employees and managers right from the start in the strategy fo rmulation process. Involvement and commitment should also be developed and maintained throughout the implementation process. If middle and lower level managers and key subordinates are permitted to be involved with the detailed implementation planning, their commitment will be likely to increase. 2.3.8 Organizational Structure Factors relating to the organizational structure are the second most important implementation barrier according to Heide Gronhaug Johannessenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸s (2002) study. Drazin and Howard (1984) see a proper strategy-structure alignment as a necessary precursor to the successful implementation of new business strategies (Noble, 1999b). They point out that changes in the competitive environment require adjustments to the organizational structure. If a firm lags in making this realignment, is may exhibit poor performance and be at a serious competitive disadvantage. Gupta (1987) examines the relationships between SBUs strategies, aspects of the corporate-SBU relationship, and implementation and finds that structures that are more decentralized produce higher levels of SBU effectiveness, regardless of the strategic context. Schaap (2006) also suggests that adjusting organizational structure according to perfect strategy can ensure successful strategy implementation. 2.4 Decision Support Systems So and Smith (2003) stated that a major component of any information system is the individuals that supply, manipulate, access and rely on the system. Individuals information needs and requirements for decision making are the reasons information systems exist. Bounds, Dobbins, and Fowler (1995) defined decision support systems (DSS) as information systems that use decision rules, decision models, a comprehensive database, and the decision makers own insights in an interactive computer-based process to assist in making specific decisions. Pourvakhshouri and Mansor (2003) stated DSS is a well established area of information system applications, which assists the decision makers to derive an in-time, efficient solution. A DSS may also be defined as an integrated, interactive and flexible computer system that supports all phases of decision making with a user-friendly interface, data and expert knowledge (Fabbri, 1998 in Pourvakhshouri Mansor, 2003). Majchrzak and Gasser (2000) indicate d that TOP-MODELER can help managers in overcoming the burden of strategic decision making in their daily business operations. The system also assists the managers to understand their organization structure in gaining closest relationship possible. Ulvila and Brown (1991) stated that decision tree analysis is the oldest and most widely used form of decision analysis. Managers have used it in making business decisions. On the other hand, Heenan and Addleman (1991) proposed that mangers to use multivariate analysis (MVA), the quantitative methods can help to evaluate the complex and intangible factors that influence consumers. Moreover, MVA had been used for application to business problems in consumer packaged goods and services sector. 2.5 Decision Approach Decision making style of managers can be classified based on their approach towards the problem that they tried to solve. Barton and Martin (1994) stated that various models of decision style being adopted such as rational model, non-rational model, satisficing model, incremental model, and garbage-can model. Basically, these models are based on the individual managers perspective toward decision making. First, rational model suggested that managers engage in completely rational decision processes, ultimately make optimal decision, and possess and understand all information relevant to their decisions at the time they make them. Second, non-rational model suggests that information-gathering and -processing limitations make it difficult for managers to make optimal decisions. Third, satisficing model suggests that managers seek alternatives only until they find one that looks satisfactory, rather than seeking the optimal decision. Fourth, incremental model stated that managers make th e smallest response possible that will reduce the problem to at least a tolerable level. Finally, garbage-can model stated that managers behave in virtually a random pattern in making non programmed decisions. Basi (1988) identified that decision style is influenced by organizational culture; which will lead to decision making. So and Smith (2003) indicated that differences in decision makers cognitive styles, cognitive abilities and personality are important factors in decision making and performance. Further, the Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) (Myers and McCaulley, 1985 in So and Smith, 2003) is used to determine cognitive styles along two basic dimensions, perception (information acquisition), and judgment (data processing and evaluation). MBTI categorizes individuals as sensors or intuitors in the perception dimension; and MBTI classifies individuals as thinking or feeling types in judgment dimension. Rausch (2003) indicated that managers leadership roles need to consider 8 suggested questions as they develop a plan, solve a problem, meet a cha

Binary Oppositions in Leda and the Swan Essays -- Leda and the Swan Es

Binary Oppositions in Leda and the Swan Yeats' "Leda and the Swan" uses the binary oppositions of the beauty and viciousness of Zeus as a swan and the helplessness and eventual strength of Leda, Yeats reveals that even the mightiest entities may suffer the consequences of their misuse of power. In "Leda and the Swan," the beauty of the swan is contrasted with the physical attributes of a swan who acts out his male animalistic power over his female prey, demonstrating the raw male and female relationships in nature. Swan are huge birds, and as pointed out in the Internet site "The Swan and Leda" (a poem on the same subject as "Leda and the Swan") "Swans, unlike most birds, have external genitals" (1). Thus, the swan is a perfect animal for such a hideous crime as Zeus performs on Leda. In further developing the underlying repercussion theme, the basis of the poem must be analyzed. In Greek Mythology, Zeus disguises himself as a swan in order to lure the pure and sexually ripe Leda into violence. Critical Survey of Poetry, edited by Frank N. Magill, says, "In the tale from antiquity, a Spartan Queen, Leda, was so beautiful that Zeus, ruler of the Gods, decided that he must have her. Since the immortals usually did not present themselves to humankind in their divine forms, Zeus changed himself into a great swan and in that shape ravished the helpless girl" (3716). Zeus as the swan is described as being "great" and of "feathered glory" (lines 1-6). He is a terrific product of nature, yet his male sexual tendencies get the better of him, and he gives into his uncontrollable lust for Leda. Zeus is a selfish male who uses his superhuman powers to exploit an innocent human. Clearly, the oppositions Yeats uses provoke intrig... ...Literary Criticism. Ed. Dennis Poupard. Detroit: Gale Publishing, 1989. 397. Hathorn, Richmond Y. Greek Mythology. Lebanon: The American University of Beirut, 1977. Johnsen, William. Yeats and Postmodernism. New York: Syracuse University Press, 1991. Kuehn, Robert E. "Yeats." Contemporary Literature Criticism. Ed. Dedria Bryfronski. Detroit: Gale Publishing, 1979. 284. Lucas, John. "Yeats." World Literature Criticism. Ed. James P. Draper. Detroit: Gale Publishing, 1992. 4110. Magill, Frank N. ed. Critical Survey of Poetry. Pasedena: Salem Press, 1992. "The Swan and Leda." On-line. Internet. July, 1996. Available Netscape Navigator: http://charm.physics.ucsb.edu/people/hart/poem/swan.html Yeats, William Butler.   "Leda and the Swan." Literature: Structure, Sound, and Sense.   4th ed.   Ed. Laurence Perrine.   New York: Harcourt.   1983.   636

Institutional Framework – Jitto Paul James

GLOBAL BUSINESS STRATEGIES TOPICS :INSTUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS SUBMITTED BY : JITTO PAUL JAMES 11-PCO-18 Technical framework for global strategies Introduction : Strategies in a global setting involves competition in industries that extends across national boundaries and firms with different national bases that may tap into strategic resources in more than one location. The frameworks for global strategic analysis at four levels are the geographic scope of the industry , the competitiveness of various locations , the geographic reach of the firm and the global integration vs. ocal focus of specific activities . The sustainable growth of the country depends mainly on the quality of a country‘s institutions. Without well-functioning institutions, education and training policies are less effective and factor markets cannot function efficiently. Even the Financial systems, which are a central element in funding new investment, do not function effectively in a weak institutional environm ent . In short, strong institutions are a central determinant of the ability of economies to compete and to grow successfully.Level of analysis : issues , frameworks and actions The principal frames of reference required for strategic thinking and action in an international context , these include those required for defining the geographic scope of industries, the competitive advantage of countries and its implications for the locations of activities and tradeoffs between local responsiveness and global integration of different activities in the value chain . While each of these levels is complex, we find it useful to caricature. each of these frameworks graphically , much as Porter has done ith the five competitiveness . These caricature are drastic oversimplifications and omit many relevant variable and feedbacks , but they call to mind the various dimensions that should be considered . The goal is not to master the framework , but to use it to master the strategic issue at hand . This will require modifying the frameworks, often adding or changing dimensions , as the most relevant simplifications will vary from application to application . The basic frameworks and the definition of the various forces are presented below , together with the key references for each .All of the levels of analysis identified above plays a role in overall strategic process . Often , this process is depicted hierarchically , zooming in , from the most macro to the most micro perspectives from positioning to implementation . In practice , the process is more simultaneous and chaotic , since changes in opportunities or threats may appear at any of the levels , triggering a new round of strategic assessment . Nevertheless , it is useful to present the frameworks as a simple hierarchy from industry structure , location based advantage , and the various dimensions of internationalization of the firm .Institutional bodies for import / export Institutions engaged in export/ import effor t fall in six distinct tiers. At the top is the Department of Commerce in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and their main function is to formulate and guide India’s trade policy. In the Second tier, there are advisory bodies to ensure that export problems are comprehensively dealt with after mutual discussions between the Government and the Industry. At the third tier are the commodity specific organizations, which deal with problems relating to individual commodities and/or groups of commodities.The fourth tier consists of service institutions, which facilitates and assist the exporters to expand their operations and reach out more effectively to the world markets. The fifth tier consists 44 of Government trading organizations specifically set up to handle export/import of specified commodities and to supplement the efforts of the private enterprise in the field of export promotion and import management. Finally ,agencies for export promotion at the State level constitu te the sixth tier. Reference : International business competing in the global market place ( second edition ) by Charles W. L . Hill * Global business strategy : An introduction by Robin John , Grazia Letto Gilles . * Chamber of commerce * Ministry of trade and commerce * Investopedia for definition * EXIM Report http://www. slideshare. net/hemanthcrpatna/a-study-on-media-as-a-source-of-influence http://www. scribd. com/doc/95124603/A-Study-on-Media-as-a-Source-of-Influence-on-Consumer-Decision-Process-in-Bilaspur http://www. studymode. com/essays/Media-Impact-On-Consumer-Buying-Behavior-268694. html? topic

The Textbook Defines Ecosystem Theory As How Social Workers

The textbook defines ecosystem theory as how social workers look at a crisis in relation to the environmental context. (James Gilliland 2013 p. 14) Some environmental effects of hurricane Katrina and the residents that were held in the Louisiana superdome are rather apparent. With only including the damage to the Superdome, the financial burden that fell on the city of New Orleans and its residents was one that would take years to recover from. This affected the community in a large way and continues to affect the city of New Orleans today. However, according to a Speech given by President Barack Obama, ten years after the disaster, the effects of Hurricane Katrina have actually improved the lives of many of the resident living in New†¦show more content†¦In regards to the differing cultures that were affected by the hurricane, emergency responders need to be made aware of the beliefs of some regarding evacuation. It is possible that poor inner-city residents are often the least likely to follow official evacuation warnings, some because they lack transportation and others because they fail to take such warnings seriously. Religious faith also plays a part in cultural considerations during a crisis. Ones religious affiliation may cause them to place their safety with a higher being and not take the necessary precautions during an emergency. The negative association of early evacuation that accompanies some religious individuals, suggest that, emergency planning initiatives can be improved by assisting local civic and faith-based organizations in developing a coordinated, system of hazards education. (Elliot Pias 2006). Hurricane Katrina was a category five storm making it a federal emergency. (Nigg, Barnshaw Torres 2016 p. 115) A magnitude of storm that the city of New Orleans was vastly unprepared for and that caused the loss of many lives and the destruction of an entire city. The superdome was just one of many infrastructures that was damaged during Hurricane Katrina. According to study doneShow MoreRelatedEssay Crisis Management According to Cornelissen2348 Words   |  10 PagesIn order to look at the impact of social media on the process of crisis communications for the professional communications professional, I will first review the traditional approach as outlined in our course textbook, â€Å"Corporate Communication, A guide to theory and practice† by Joep Cornelissen. (Cornelissen, 2008). I will then relate some of the unique issues now facing communication professionals who must engage in a social media landscape when addressing a contemporary crisis. Crisis ManagementRead MoreEssay on Laudon Mis 6ce Ch0312347 Words   |  50 PagesCompany split off from Kodak, it demonstrated that firm size can stay constant or contract even as the company increases its revenues. Answer: TRUE Diff: 2 Type: TF Page Ref: 72 AACSB: Analytic skills CASE: Analysis A-level Heading: 3.2 How Information Systems Impact Organizations and Business Firms 6) A firm can be said to have competitive advantage when they have higher stock market valuations than their competitors. Answer: TRUE Diff: 2 Type: TF Page Ref: 76 AACSB: ReflectiveRead MoreStrategic Management and Information Systems19841 Words   |  80 PagesDemonstrate how Porter’s competitive forces model and the value chain model help businesses use information systems for competitive advantage. 4. Demonstrate how information systems help businesses use synergies, core competencies, and network-based strategies to achieve competitive advantage. 5. Assess the challenges posed by strategic information systems and management solutions. 3.4 CHAPTER OUTLINE 3.1 ORGANIZATIONS AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS What Is an Organization? Features of Organizations HOW INFORMATIONRead MoreDecision Theory: a Brief Introduction28334 Words   |  114 PagesDecision Theory A Brief Introduction 1994-08-19 Minor revisions 2005-08-23 Sven Ove Hansson Department of Philosophy and the History of Technology Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Stockholm 1 Contents Preface ..........................................................................................................4 1. What is decision theory? ..........................................................................5 1.1 Theoretical questions about decisions ......................Read MoreStatement of Purpose23848 Words   |  96 Pagesand Voice ................................................................................................. 5 Sample Statements of Purpose ........................................................................................................ 8 I. Social Sciences ........................................................................................................................ 8 Education: Teaching English as a Second or Other Language (TESOL)—non-native English Speaker .....................Read MoreDebonairs Pizza Product-Market Expansion Growth Strategies27204 Words   |  109 PagesAssignment Handbook – July 2010 6.7 Academic support 6.7.1 Tutor support (Academic faculty) 6.7.2 Module Co-ordinators 6.7.3 Library services 6.7.4 Website 6.7.5 Module guides 6.7.6 Online Learning Centre (Multimedia Support) 6.7.7 Prescribed Textbooks 6.8 IT AND Website 6.9 Research 6.10 General 6.10.1 Ownership of work produced by students 6.10.2 Publication or display of project reports 6.10.3 Equal opportunities – Statement of intent 6.10.4 Freedom of speech 6.10.5 Graduation 6.10.6 RecognitionRead MoreLand Use Development Patterns And The International Division Of Labor9999 Words   |  40 Pagescommunity design, spatial development, and urban geography) is referred to as the human use of the earth’s surface, including the location, type and design of infrastructure such as roads and buildings. Land use patterns can have diverse economic, social and environmental impacts and some are more accessible and so reduce transportation costs to businesses and consumers. Transportation on the other hand is the movement of people, information and goods from one location to another. The specific purposeRead MoreMis Quiz8092 Words   |  33 Pagesnetwork system B) learning management system C) digital asset management system D) content management system 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 1 11) Virtual reality systems A) provide architects, engineers, and medical workers with precise, photorealistic simulations of objects. B) provide an important source of expertise for organizations. C) allow groups to work together on documents. D) provide engineers, designers, and factory managers with precise control over industrialRead MoreInternational Management67196 Words   |  269 Pagesto get tougher with companies in terms of oversight and accountability. The advent of social networking and other media has transformed the way citizens interact and how businesses market, promote, and distribute their products globally. The same can be said for mass collaboration efforts occurring through digital, online technology for the development of new and innovative systems, products, and ideas. Both social networking and mass collaboration bring new power and influence to individuals acrossRead MoreOne Significant Change That Has Occurred in the World Between 1900 and 2005. Explain t he Impact This Change Has Made on Our Lives and Why It Is an Important Change.163893 Words   |  656 Pagesperspectives on the past) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-4399-0269-1 (cloth : alk. paper)—ISBN 978-1-4399-0270-7 (paper : alk. paper)—ISBN 978-1-4399-0271-4 (electronic) 1. History, Modern—20th century. 2. Twentieth century. 3. Social history—20th century. 4. World politics—20th century. I. Adas, Michael, 1943– II. American Historical Association. D421.E77 2010 909.82—dc22 2009052961 The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard