Question 1 Are managers obsolete?
One of the best ways that managers can increase the level of motivation among subordinates is to be effective leaders. Leadership can be defined as a process of influence in which the leader is able to get the follower to stay on a prescribed path toward the attainment of specific goals that are desired by the leader. Thus, by definition the art of leadership is an important part of effective management. The art of leadership may be inherent within the individual. If leadership can be acquired through education and training it may be the most difficult thing to learn (Shell 2003). Managers in the professional environment are likely to have specialized training and are often preoccupied with the technical or scientific aspects of subordinate jobs. Consequently, they may pay little attention to the development and application of leadership skills (Shell 2003). When overall organizational success is related to leadership qualities, it is clear that effective leadership can and does make a difference Leadership qualities assume great importance in the professional work environment because professionals are highly sensitive to how they are managed (Shell 2003).
A categorization of leadership types can be established relating to the institutional settings within which leadership is exercised and which allow or prevent feasible leadership action. Leadership styles by contrast can be categorized according to the actual behavior of leaders faced by particular situations. The leadership component is not much easier to identify. Traditional organizational culture is sometimes expressed in terms such as risk aversion, inertia, hierarchy and sometimes political clientelism (Haus, Heinelt & Stewart, 2004). Leadership styles associated with this kind of political culture are far removed from the values and expectations which might be linked to an effective complementarily between leadership and community involvement. A range of leadership styles may therefore be appropriate for joint working dependent on the personal characteristics evident in the leaders reflecting the degree of charisma, commitment, persuasion, ambition etc. which rest within any individual (Haus, Heinelt & Stewart 2004).
The classical approach to management was an era where organizations were seen as nothing but creator of products. The old belief is that organizations is managed only to create products that the public needs. The organizations don’t need to have communication with its environment; it just needs to create products. The classical approach to management believed that organizations don’t have to mingle or interact with the environment and there are no opportunities in the environment. In those times managers have no capability to determine the risks and they were not able to foresee future problems of the company. The classical approach to management has brought about articles on a company’s need for managers. As the article “Are managers obsolete?” imply management has seem to lose its importance in an organization. The article mentioned that managers have no capability to predict catastrophic situations for a company. This does not mean that managers are not important anymore, they are still needed by companies because they are the ones that ensure that the company will follow the procedures in creating a product. The managers ensure that the company will use the best strategies that will help them achieve their goal. There are different leadership styles and it includes the bureaucratic leader, the charismatic leader, the democratic leader, the autocratic leader, the laissez faire leader, the servant leader, the transaction leader, the transformation leader and the environment leader. The bureaucratic leader is the one that follows everything by the book. The charismatic leader has the capability to make the personnel do things that they don’t usually do. He/she makes use of various motivational strategies to put the personnel under his/her command.
The Autocratic leader has total authority over the organization; he uses forceful means to make the personnel perform under his/her standards. The democratic leader listens to the personnel’s ideas and opinions and he uses the ideas to make decisions regarding the performance of the firm. The laissez faire leader lets the employees do what they want because he/she believes that the personnel do not need supervision. The servant leader is the one that does everything even what should be done by the personnel. The transaction leader has the power to evaluate, correct and train employees who performs poorly. The transformation leader makes sure that he/she motivates well the personnel so that they will be an effective and efficient member of the organization. The environment leader makes of environmental issues and instances to change the perception and actions of the personnel. Each leadership style has varied affects on a personnel and its effectiveness depends on the current situation of the firm.
Question 2: Are assets obsolete
Firms whose assets are tangible and useful in a variety of situations will carry higher levels of debt than will firms with intangible, specialized assets. Presumably insolvency costs for the former are lower because of the salvage value of the assets. Put another way, tangible, general assets offer more persuasive collateral to most lenders than do intangible and/or specialized assets (Birley & Macmillan 1997). Thus the presence of tangible general assets in a firm effectively shifts the optimum to the right, to higher levels of debt. The character or nature of such assets or capabilities should also motivate fast-growing enterprises to focus their product market mix. Many assets and capabilities are in articulable, non-tradable, not observable, and tacit. This severely limits the ability of a firm to recognize the importance or value of external opportunities and to assimilate and utilize successfully those opportunities which it does recognize. The extent to which a firm is able to recognize and seize opportunities rests on its prior experience and knowledge and its ability to learn (Birley & Macmillan 1997).
Together, the criteria create a learning range which severely delimits the ability of a firm to recognize and seize external opportunities. The presence of in articulable or tacit capabilities at founding limits the firm to recognizing and executing successfully only those initiatives which are closely related to its original capabilities firms lacking a proprietary asset or invention could not select a trajectory and, through time, develop a host of co-specialized assets. Instead, they would be forced to attempt to acquire, at least during their infancy, some asset stocks. In addition to the dilemmas of purchasing a strategic capability, some capabilities are simply not for sale (Birley & Macmillan 1997). Possessing a proprietary asset or invention at founding may often mean that the enterprise has a monopoly on it and, thus, would derive little benefit from any acquisition. Creating a stream of co-specialized assets and successfully leveraging the new asset or invention would then require a firm to venture. Since no firm can utilize its assets at 100 percent efficiency, slack or fallow resources exist within the firm. These spur growth. As a firm brings more resources on line, it simultaneously increases its stock of assets and, therefore, slack. This requires the firm to utilize still more slack growth begets growth. Given in articulable and tacit assets which are often embedded within a firms routines, internal venturing would have a greater likelihood of isolating and utilizing successfully the slack imbedded within a firm’s proprietary asset or inventions (Birley & Macmillan 1997).
Different product market focuses should also enliven differing rates of return. Much of the strategy literature on mergers and acquisitions and diversification demonstrates that a related or more tightly focused strategy outperforms a less related or more unfocused one. Focus is argued to be superior, because it confirms the strength of a firm’s endowment or capabilities. If a firm possesses assets it can continually modify and utilize to generate rents, it will not have to attempt to enter new markets. Similarly, focus also implies that the enterprise’s competition does not have competitive capabilities which force the firm to enter into unfamiliar markets and industries (Birley & Macmillan 1997). The asset is an economic benefit attained from a past event or transaction. Assets can be in the form of current asters, long term investments, current assets and intangible assets. A company’s asset is not obsolete since it is used in making decisions on market risk. Market risk arises from the event of a change in some market-determined asset price, reference rate or index. The events that define market risk can be separated into two categories. The first type of event that generates market risk defines market risk based on the type of asset class whose price changes are impacting the exposure in question (Culp 2001).
A common form of asset class-based market risk is known as interest rate risk, or the risk that the balance sheet assets, liabilities, and off-balance sheet items of a firm including its derivatives will change in value as interest rates change. Other asset class-driven classifications of market risk include changes in the value of an exposure attributable to fluctuations in exchange rates, commodity prices, and equity values. Apart from the risk factors that influence the value of an exposure, the market risk of an exposure can also be characterized based on how those risk factors impact its value (Culp 2001). Assets give an idea on what aspect of the market should be surveyed for risk. Assets also provide stability to the company because too many liabilities can cause the downfall of any company. Moreover assets assist in preparing for future problems. Lastly assets can be used to supply the company additional operating capital.
Question 3: Inventing the future
Inventing the future means that a firm in an industry makes use of advanced technology to provide service to its clients. One successful instance is on Metro Transit Railway Corporation of Hong Kong. In Hong Kong the Mass Transit Railway (MTR) is a unified complex which carries throughout its entities a single semiotic system. The code preference system is uniform, but in the case of the MTR it is Chinese which is placed in the upper position, English in the lower (Scollon & Scollon2003). The Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC) is one of the two government-based corporations at present operating the railway network system of Hong Kong. At present there are 5 underground railway lines operated by the corporation serving mainly within the metro areas. They are the Island Line running along the northern coast areas of Hong Kong Island; the Quarry Bay Line running from the eastern part of Hong Kong Island through a submerged tube across the harbor to the central-eastern part of Kowloon. The Tsuen Wan Line running from Central of Hong Kong Island, then across the harbor and serves the western portion of Kowloon until it reaches Tsuen Wan (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat 2001).
The Tung Chung Line runs from Central to the new town of Tung Chung at Lantau Island. The last one is the Airport Express Line providing direct link from Central to the new airport at Chek Lap Kok (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat 2001). MTR Corporation belongs to the transport and property industry. It produces railway systems for Hong Kong and some other countries. The company currently underwent a merger with Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation. The objective of the MTRC is to create and maintain an urban train system that will meet the transportation demands of the general public of Hong Kong. MTRC monopolized the railway system of Hong Kong and it made a different travel experience for Hong Kong people and tourist. The advancement in Rail systems paved the way for it to be monopolized in various states including Hong Kong. The monopoly of the railway sector resulted in inefficiency in terms of more people using a single service. The monopoly of the railway sector reduced the desire of MTR to improve their services such as better facilities for passengers. For instance MTRC lacks public toilets especially in main line stations; this can cause the travel delay of passengers.
MTRC’s success is copied by rail road systems all over the world. Railroad companies could also benefit from combinations with corporations outside the business of railroading (Burns1998).They could diversify their investment bases, secure new avenues of capital, and acquire competing modes of transportation. Diversified investment bases might allow rail carriers to withstand more effectively declines in rail traffic while obtaining needed capital from non rail holding companies or non rail subsidiaries (Burns1998). Reduced regulation, mergers with other transportation companies, and affiliation with huge diversified conglomerates helped railroads stem the decline in their share of intercity freight. Rail carriers had access to new domestic and international markets through a booming inter modal industry, and a resurgence of the short line industry permitted the larger carriers regularly to abandon service over superfluous or marginally profitable line segments. As a result, railroads reported returns on investment at levels not seen in decades, and they boasted of highly advanced equipment and rights-of-way in first class condition. Through combinations with other systems, railroads formed the most efficient network yet realized for delivering freight to existing rail markets throughout the world (Burns1998).
Rail road systems have changed its course over the years. Due to the need to improve itself railway companies engaged in mergers to form new companies that will run the railway with much more capabilities and sources. The Rail road systems have changed in terms of the operations. Most rail systems are more automated wherein everything moves through a click of a few buttons. Rail systems have become faster and quicker in transporting people or products. Traveling using the rail systems last lesser than an hour for longer distances. Rail systems have increased security measures due to current threats on people’s well being. Gadgets are installed in different Rail terminals all over the world. This ensures that acts of terrorism are prevented. Rail systems are now using devices that lessen waiting times. Machines have been made available that tend to provide faster way to get a ticket. MTRC and the innovation of rail systems proved that the future can be invented by all kinds of company as long as they would be willing to change, reorganize and accept the demands of inventing the future.
References
Banister, D 1995, Transport and urban development, E & FN
Spon, London.
Birley, S & Macmillan, IC 1997, Entrepreneurship in a
global context, London, Routledge.
Burns, JB 1998, Railroad mergers and the language of
unification, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat 2001, Tall
buildings and urban habitat: Cities in the third
millennium, Spon Press, New York.
Culp, CL 2001, The risk management process: Business
strategy and tactics, Wiley, New York.
Haus, M, Heinelt, H & Stewart, M 2004, Urban governance and
democracy: leadership and community involvement, Routledge,
New York.
Shell, RL 2003, Management of professionals, Marcel Dekker,
New York.
Scollon, R & Scollon, SW 2003, Discourses in place:
Language in the material world, Routledge, London
Toporowski, J 2000, The end of finance: the theory of
capital market inflation, financial derivatives, and
Pension Fund Capitalism, Routledge, London.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment