Search results

Today's corporate planner has a unique opportunity to provide a community service. Although many non‐profit organizations have sophisticated management systems, others have not been introduced to the methodical approach to organized thinking offered by planning systems. Non‐profit organizations range from huge national organizations to local improvement groups. Many local groups are directed by their national associations; implementation of that direction varies in both complexity and success. The corporate planner, as a community service, can provide an introduction to the tools of planning organization and implementation. The results of planning, particularly the statement of mission and the responsibility assignments for action plans, provide tools that often are not available from other sources.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to knowledge in the field of business by recognizing two historic entrepreneurs who played an important role in the African-American community, and by viewing their contributions through the lens of servant leadership.

The study is conducted by reviewing and synthesizing a number of writings from sources, such as history journals, newspapers and other resources.

The main finding is that two former slaves (Merrick and Herndon) practiced servant leadership in the early twentieth century as a way to create jobs and transform communities.

The contributions made by African-Americans have not been adequately covered in the literature. This paper begins to fill a noticeable void by highlighting the contributions of two former slaves who managed to become successful servant leaders within their communities.

During the last three decades, thanks to the efforts of J. Schumpeter, G. Stigler, M. Blaug, P. Schwartz, T.W. Hutchison and others, a revaluation of the contribution of John Stuart Mill to the history of economic doctrines in general and to that of economic analysis in particular has taken place on a quite significant scale. The basic portrayal of J.S. Mill as an unoriginal and incoherent writer which prevailed from about the time of his death till around the middle of the present century came to be seriously and, one may say, successfully challenged. While the “eclecticism” of Mill was traditionally emphasised with a pejorative tone, no less than M. Blaug concluded that in the final analysis, it “worked to Mill's advantage” and that “the multiplicity of analytical ideas, often running in opposite directions, opened the way to subsequent refinement and development” (Blaug, 1968, p. 220). The theoretical inventiveness of J.S. Mill was stressed in still louder terms by G. Stigler when he wrote that “he was one of the most original economists in the history of the science” (Stigler, 1955, p. 7).

Behavioral researchers argue that although individuals often rely on heuristics or rules of thumb that reduce the complexity involved in predicting values, such heuristics can lead to severe and systematic errors. I test this argument in an investment context by focusing on a simple heuristic whereby momentum traders are attracted to buying stocks that have recently doubled in price in anticipation of further gains. I show that such a strategy can lead to predictable disappointment for these investors and severe underperformance relative to the market (‐28% over a 4‐year period), whereas investors who avoid relying on this simple heuristic are likely to perform as expected, on average similar to the overall market. I also find that underperformance is more severe for stocks that have doubled faster. The “doubling” variable is a significant predictor of future price reversals in addition to past performance per se, as uncovered by the previous researchers.

The emergence and maturation of the social sciences is an important component of the expansion of institutions of higher learning in the 20th century. The discipline of Political Economy, increasingly institutionalized in various Canadian universities in the early decades of the century, secured a Chair at the University of Manitoba in 1909. After 1914, its title became “Political Economy and Political Science” and the department subsequently served “as the great mother department to which were attached newer social science disciplines until it was deemed appropriate to let them launch out on their own” (Pentland, 1977, p. 3). Political Science became independent in 1948, Geography in 1951, and Sociology and Anthropology in 1962 (p. 4). Agricultural Economics, which was taught in the Manitoba Agricultural College, became its own department when the college joined the university in 1924. In the 1930s, Agricultural Economics was absorbed into Department of Political Economy. However, according to Pentland (pp. 4–5) it was not until the late 1940s that agricultural economics became a significant “sub-department.” It subsequently separated itself from Political Economy and, in 1954, became an independent department in the Faculty of Agriculture (p. 5). The result of these disciplinary developments was that the faculty of the Department of Political Economy had, from time to time, members whose expertise lay outside the increasingly well-defined terrain of economics. Despite this, however, they did not seem to have any long-lasting direct impact on shaping and defining the curricula in Economics. Since these other disciplines left and became independent when they had reached a certain size or degree of influence, Economics was left to define and pursue its own agenda unencumbered by the needs of these former associates.

This chapter outlines how Pearson, the world’s largest education company, and its CEO John Fallon are acting as trailblazers of Jugaad Innovation (https://hbr.org/2014/12/what-frugal-innovators-do) in education by embedding a focus on learner outcomes – “efficacy” – at the heart of the company. The purpose of the chapter is to highlight practical examples of how this innovation has affected business strategy and decision-making, enabling the company to be able to have a greater impact on learning with the aim of simultaneously helping the business to grow financially. Many of these examples are from products and units that are continuing to embrace and adopt efficacy; they represent live examples of best practice.

This chapter provides an overview of how the drive toward efficacy represents a new, innovative way of doing business. The approach is not new to education, but putting a focus on learner outcomes at the center of traditional business operations represents a step-change from how other companies in the sector operate. The chapter will also look at the Office of the Chief Education Advisor, a central intrapreneurial unit that continues to lead the global efficacy agenda, with the aim that efficacy becomes so embedded in the company fabric that it becomes irreversible. In addition, the chapter provides some other examples of specific frameworks, tools and units that operate with an innovative and intrapreneurial mindset.

This study presents a case study in a major private company and the way the applied approach affected the company. The content of the chapter is taken from a live case and represents a unique insight into the ongoing application of innovation and intrapreneurship in the field.