1,721,074 research outputs found
Strategic Management
No full textOrganizing has been central to the evolution of our species. From our earliest days as hunter gatherers, humans have worked collaboratively to achieve things which might be impossible when acting alone. Long before the emergence of formal organizations such as armies or religious groups, people have acted strategically and our history is littered with the names of those who are remembered for the quality of their strategic thinking. One simple definition is that strategy is the craft of collectively rising to a significant challenge and accomplishing more than might be reasonably expected (MacIntosh and MacLean, 2015: 3). Defined in this way, it is easy to spot strategy wherever unexpected outcomes are achieved. In military terms, leaders such as Alexander the Great occasionally triumph against the odds. They do so by being strategic in deploying their troops or by outsmarting their rivals. In political terms, leaders such as Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Ghandi galvanise efforts to overcome seemingly impossible circumstances and effect regime change where others have failed. In commercial terms, small start-ups go on to dislodge larger competitors and establish a dominant position. On first inspection, David should never defeat Goliath, yet this assessment of advantage and disadvantage overlooks the critical role of the strategist. The lowly shepherd boy would almost certainly have lost had he engaged in hand-to-hand combat with a larger, more experienced and more skilled warrior. Instead, David chose to use a particular skill, accuracy with a sling shot, to change the dynamic of the competitive encounter. In order to achieve more than might reasonably be expected, strategists must draw on resources that are often hidden from their opponent’s sight. Knowledge of their unique skills might allow them to achieve things which their opponent would find difficult. A deep sense of resolve might allow them to endure things which others would find unpalatable. A capacity to develop a deep understanding of their context might allow them to spot opportunities and threats in their environment long before others have had the chance to respond. An acute sense of timing might allow them to act decisively when circumstances confer maximum advantage and not a moment too early or too late. Finally, a creative capacity to weave resources, skills, environmental conditions and timing into a strategy which is inherently cunning can allow good strategists to overwhelm better resourced, longer established and seemingly invincible opponents just as David overcame Goliath. <br/
Strategic Management
No full textOrganizing has been central to the evolution of our species. From our earliest days as hunter gatherers, humans have worked collaboratively to achieve things which might be impossible when acting alone. Long before the emergence of formal organizations such as armies or religious groups, people have acted strategically and our history is littered with the names of those who are remembered for the quality of their strategic thinking. One simple definition is that strategy is the craft of collectively rising to a significant challenge and accomplishing more than might be reasonably expected (MacIntosh and MacLean, 2015: 3). Defined in this way, it is easy to spot strategy wherever unexpected outcomes are achieved. In military terms, leaders such as Alexander the Great occasionally triumph against the odds. They do so by being strategic in deploying their troops or by outsmarting their rivals. In political terms, leaders such as Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Ghandi galvanise efforts to overcome seemingly impossible circumstances and effect regime change where others have failed. In commercial terms, small start-ups go on to dislodge larger competitors and establish a dominant position. On first inspection, David should never defeat Goliath, yet this assessment of advantage and disadvantage overlooks the critical role of the strategist. The lowly shepherd boy would almost certainly have lost had he engaged in hand-to-hand combat with a larger, more experienced and more skilled warrior. Instead, David chose to use a particular skill, accuracy with a sling shot, to change the dynamic of the competitive encounter. In order to achieve more than might reasonably be expected, strategists must draw on resources that are often hidden from their opponent’s sight. Knowledge of their unique skills might allow them to achieve things which their opponent would find difficult. A deep sense of resolve might allow them to endure things which others would find unpalatable. A capacity to develop a deep understanding of their context might allow them to spot opportunities and threats in their environment long before others have had the chance to respond. An acute sense of timing might allow them to act decisively when circumstances confer maximum advantage and not a moment too early or too late. Finally, a creative capacity to weave resources, skills, environmental conditions and timing into a strategy which is inherently cunning can allow good strategists to overwhelm better resourced, longer established and seemingly invincible opponents just as David overcame Goliath. <br/
Alien Registration- Macintosh, Robert (Presque Isle, Aroostook County)
Full text linkhttps://digitalmaine.com/alien_docs/20936/thumbnail.jp
Managing Change
No full textOne of the mantras that we hear today is that change is the only certainty. Further, we are often told that we are living through a period of unprecedented change driven by globalisation, the internet, deregulation and the rate of technological innovation occurring. Previous eras may be able to lay claim to rapid and radical change but there is little doubt that technological advancements mean that we are living through a second industrial revolution (MacIntosh, 2003). Most of the time, most organizations are managing change through the deliberate selection of organizational structures, processes and practices which we hope will produce particular results. This is often called change work (Beech & MacIntosh, 2012) and can emanate from within the organization, be driven by shifts in the external environment or through a combination of both. Change may therefore be optional or unavoidable, rapid or slow, radical or evolutionary
Writing Up Your Research Project
No full textFor many people, their dissertation represents the largest piece of written work they will have had to produce to date. Writing tens of thousands of words is a qualitatively different problem than writing shorter essay or assignment style pieces. With scale comes the challenge of making sure that the document as a whole flows, is clearly structured and reads like a single integrated piece. In reality, you will find yourself writing different sections at different times sometimes months apart. It is not uncommon for these different sections to vary slightly in focus, structure or tone and this can mean that the final project reads as somewhat disjointed. The problem is that both projects and writing styles differ, so there is no single recipe for success. The research topic, methods, supervisors and your own way of working are all key aspects of developing a high quality document that will be assessed against the kinds of criteria set out in appendix 2. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight a few key points about the process of writing up your research project, as distinct from the process of doing the research itself, and offer some advice on writing effectively. Though obviously interrelated, it is worth teasing these two tasks apart since it can make the whole process more productive. The chapter begins with a look at mapping out your writing, before offering suggestions on how to find your focus and maintain it. The chapter then looks at overcoming writer’s block, rewriting and editing, and the use of technology. This is followed by a series of writing tips, before the chapter concludes with some practical advice on the relationship between you and your supervisor. <br/
Writing Up: A Tool Kit for Constructing your written project
No full textFor many people, their dissertation represents the largest piece of written work they will have had to produce to date. Writing tens of thousands of words is a qualitatively different problem than writing shorter essay or assignment style pieces. With scale comes the challenge of making sure that the document as a whole flows, is clearly structured and reads like a single integrated piece. In reality, you will find yourself writing different sections at different times sometimes months apart. It is not uncommon for these different sections to vary slightly in focus, structure or tone and this can mean that the final project reads as somewhat disjointed. The problem is that both projects and writing styles differ, so there is no single recipe for success. The research topic, methods, supervisors and your own way of working are all key aspects of developing a high-quality document that will be assessed against the kinds of criteria set out in appendix 2. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight a few key points about the process of writing up your research project, as distinct from the process of doing the research itself, and offer some advice on writing effectively. Though obviously interrelated, it is worth teasing these two tasks apart since it can make the whole process more productive. The chapter begins with a look at mapping out your writing, before offering suggestions on how to find your focus and maintain it. The chapter then looks at overcoming writer’s block, rewriting and editing, and the use of technology. This is followed by a series of writing tips, before the chapter concludes with some practical advice on the relationship between you and your supervisor
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
