Search results

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/02621719110142913. When citing the article, please cite: Michael Ames, Dorothy Heide, (1991), “The Keys to Successful Management Development in the 1990s”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 10 Iss: 2, pp. 20 - 30.

A survey was mailed to the deans of AACSB accredited schools and 50 per cent of the non‐accredited AACSB affiliates, to determine their perceptions of how the changes in accreditation criteria might affect their curricula and what methods might be used to make these changes. The sample was classified according to the Porter‐McKibbin categories and significant differences were found among these categories for perceived ease of accreditation; changes in programme quality; resource allocation changes; use of mission statements in decision making; curriculum component emphasis, and curriculum evaluation methods. While the overall amount of change expected in the next five years seems modest, the nature of the changes expected could have significant effects on the curricula of US business schools.

Europe in 1992 will have a different environment. To remain competitive firms will need to have improved their internal organisation. The relationships between three organisational variables – task design, work flow and people – and technical complexity are discussed. The Japanese team‐centred approach to these three variables is compared with the traditional, manager‐centred approach. Management development professionals are introduced to a team‐centred approach to improvement, i.e. the technology of improvement. They are also shown how they can assist their firms in achieving the team approach through the process of co‐operative learning. Co‐operative, competitive and individual learning models are compared and management development professionals′ responsibilities are presented.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the direct and interaction effects of relational governance and two control mechanisms, output control and process control in the context of international exchange relationships. Cross-border exchange relationships receive growing attention in the literature. Yet extant research has mainly examined single governance mechanisms. Among the few studies that investigate the interaction effects of relational governance and control mechanisms, some believe that the two mechanisms have conflicting effects, whereas others argue that they are complementary in nature.

Based on a sample of 184 Chinese export ventures, the empirical paper adopts the hierarchical moderated multiple regression approach.

The authors find that relational governance contributes positively to export performance, while output control leads negatively to export performance. The findings further suggest that output control complements relational governance to enhance export performance when combined. However, process control and relational governance substitute each other and reduce effectiveness when used simultaneously.

The study sheds new light on the ongoing debate about whether control mechanisms substitute or complement relational governance.

The study is novel in addressing the issue of how relational governance interacts differently with two control mechanisms in the international exchange relationships.