Search results

What follows in this article can best be described as what German scholars call unabgesichert—that which is insufficiently protected from critical attack. What I have to say is personal, tentative, speculative, exploratory, ill‐worked out, probably inconsistent and certainly derivative. It cannot claim that status of theory, nor of a model, but is a series of assertions which underpin my view of behaviour within organisations. It is an attempt, within the limitations of space and readership imposed by this journal, to sketch in some ideas that inform my work with members of organisations particularly within the field of decision‐making. I expect it to be attacked and, from the standpoint of scholarly detachment, I would welcome such attacks. From a less objective standpoint however, I must point out that I am a small bloke with specs and acne who fundamentally is not too keen on having sand kicked in his face so comment tempered with constructive criticism is more likely to be readily received than any other kind.

Seeks to provide an overview of the development of the concept of management competence in the context of management learning. Briefly describes the competence approaches to management development of Boyatzis and the Management Charter Initiative (MCI). Identifies and discusses a number of critical standpoints. Evaluates the utility of the competence approach against some empirical observations of a practical application and presents some reservations and reflections regarding the process and outcomes. Finally, considers the role of action learning, arguing that it can provide a link between competence approaches and organizational development.

This paper considers the utilisation of theatre as a means of exploring management and organising. It focuses upon Shakespeare’s Henry V and explores the alternative readings, performances and interpretations of this central character. In particular, it considers issues of power, leadership, identity, dissemblance and dissimulation.

The word “competency” stalked up on the unwary working in the human resources field. The catalyst for its use was Boyatzis's (1982) book The Competent Manager. He triggered the popularity of the term which became de rigueur for the serious consultant in the late 1980s. Unfortunately, while street credibility demanded use of the word, few were certain in their own minds what it meant. This state of confusion has not really abated with the passage of time.

The greatest challenge for management of human resources in the 1990s is to place their local actions in a framework of global thought and strategy. Focusing on Britain, France, the US, Japan and Germany, outlines the cultural differences in management practices around the world. Suggests a framework for organizing thinking about personnel practice with an international dimension; i.e. the seven “Cs” of international HRM work – change, cosmopolitans, culture, communication, consultants, competence and co‐ordination.

Covers such techniques as action learning, open learning, computer‐based training, mentoring and group facilitation.

When you read an article in ICT, can you easily understand what the writer is saying? Or do you have to struggle through it, wringing the meaning out of each complex sentence, one by one? When someone in the training world writes an article for publishing it is generally because he has something to communicate—some message that he wants to get across to fellow workers in the field of training. (It may just be that this month he needs the money, but let's ignore that reason.) If he has a message to convey, then it is reasonable to expect him to write the article in as clear a manner as possible to make sure that you can understand and remember it. In other words, you might expect the article to be readable!

This series of articles has developed a number of views on organisation behaviour and how current knowledge on the subject can be used to improve training and development in industrial organisations. The series has been an attempt to focus the reader's attention towards the critical need for us as trainers to understand why organisations are as they are and what causes them to behave as they do. Organisation behaviour as a subject is therefore about understanding, or attempting to understand, the complexity of the relationships that exist in the collectivity of people and things that we call ‘organisation’. To achieve full understanding is, I am afraid, as hopeless as expecting to understand why our fellow men (or women) behave as they do, for organisations like all living things change as we examine them. What the theories and hypotheses on organisation behaviour can do for us is give us some idea of organisational change and the links between these causes and their manifestations in terms of behaviour. This knowledge gives us a map, however fragmented, on which we can plot bearings to indicate the course our actions should follow if they are to influence and change the reality of the organisational situation.

How do you bring together in a collaborative and co‐operative framework, the management studies work of three major colleges and some 20 other establishments spread across three counties and very varied in the extent and level of their work?

FOR SOME YEARS there has been a tendency for the number of industrial workers to decline and that of clerical staffs to increase.