Search results

Considerable controversy has arisen in recent years over the management of customer‐broker conflict in the securities industry. Attention has been focused on the supposed voluntariness and neutrality of the conflict management processes. Arbitration, which is the standard form of conflict management in the securities industry, has received particularly strong criticism. This article explains the basis for customer‐broker conflicts, the controversy surrounding the use of arbitration as a means of conflict management, and the case law regulating securities disputes.

Lawrence Clark Powell's words describe the premise of this article:

It is assumed in many circles that American university libraries are tremendously rich in books and also in dollars. There are to be sure at least twenty today with holdings of well over a million volumes each, and at least twenty‐five have been able recently to acquire additional books at a rate of 40,000 or more volumes each year. Moreover, there are a fair number of American universities. The figures I give you are from the annual official statistics of the Association of College and Research Libraries, which records information for 110 major universities.

SIR ALAN HERBERT SUGGESTS TWO‐PENCE A certain liveliness has been created in the past month by the re‐appearance of the “Lending Rights” idea, which in one way or another has pursued public libraries almost from their beginnings. It is an idea with which most authors, though not all, must feel sympathy, since it is by the sale of their books that many authors live. Why, they contend, should authors, alone among creative workers, receive only the sale royalties of their books—there are of course other rights but the statement is true in this connection—while the player, composer, dramatist, singer, player actor, and all creators of public entertainment and recorders of it have the Performing Rights Act, which assures them that they receive for every public performance of their work their due royalty and thus an income large or small according to their success.

This issue is a selected bibliography covering the subject of leadership.

This paper deals with the organizing of interactive product development. Developing products in interaction between firms may provide benefits in terms of specialization, increased innovation, and possibilities to perform development activities in parallel. However, the differentiation of product development among a number of firms also implies that various dependencies need to be dealt with across firm boundaries. How dependencies may be dealt with across firms is related to how product development is organized. The purpose of the paper is to explore dependencies and how interactive product development may be organized with regard to these dependencies.

The analytical framework is based on the industrial network approach, and deals with the development of products in terms of adaptation and combination of heterogeneous resources. There are dependencies between resources, that is, they are embedded, implying that no resource can be developed in isolation. The characteristics of and dependencies related to four main categories of resources (products, production facilities, business units and business relationships) provide a basis for analyzing the organizing of interactive product development.

Three in-depth case studies are used to explore the organizing of interactive product development with regard to dependencies. The first two cases are based on the development of the electrical system and the seats for Volvo’s large car platform (P2), performed in interaction with Delphi and Lear respectively. The third case is based on the interaction between Scania and Dayco/DFC Tech for the development of various pipes and hoses for a new truck model.

The analysis is focused on what different dependencies the firms considered and dealt with, and how product development was organized with regard to these dependencies. It is concluded that there is a complex and dynamic pattern of dependencies that reaches far beyond the developed product as well as beyond individual business units. To deal with these dependencies, development may be organized in teams where several business units are represented. This enables interaction between different business units’ resource collections, which is important for resource adaptation as well as for innovation. The delimiting and relating functions of the team boundary are elaborated upon and it is argued that also teams may be regarded as actors. It is also concluded that a modular product structure may entail a modular organization with regard to the teams, though, interaction between business units and teams is needed. A strong connection between the technical structure and the organizational structure is identified and it is concluded that policies regarding the technical structure (e.g. concerning “carry-over”) cannot be separated from the management of the organizational structure (e.g. the supplier structure). The organizing of product development is in itself a complex and dynamic task that needs to be subject to interaction between business units.

Anna Julia Cooper and Septima Poinsette Clark were two prominent late 19th- and early 20th-century educators. Cooper and Clark taught African American students in federally sanctioned, segregated schools in the South. Drawing on womanist thought as a theoretical lens, this chapter argues that Cooper and Clark’s intellectual thoughts on race, racism, education, and pedagogy informed their teaching practices. Influenced by their socio-cultural, historical, familial, and education, they implemented antioppressionist pedagogical practices as a way to empower their students and address the educational inequalities their students were subjected to in a highly racialized, violent, and repressive social order. Historical African American women educators’ social critiques on race and racism are rarely examined, particularly as they pertain to how their critiques influence their teaching practices. Cooper and Clark’s critiques about race and racism are pertinent to the story of education and racial empowerment during the Jim Crow era.

Major concern over monopolies and trusts was one of the distinguishing marks of the American Economic Association from its foundation and lasted well into the early 1900s (Coats, 1960). The failed merger attempt of the Northern Securities Company and the subsequent panic of 1902–1903, the 1907 financial crisis and its aftermath, as well as the ostensibly illegal financial practices of many conglomerates, all contributed to keep the trusts issue alive on academic circles. But it was only after the 1911 Court decisions that the debate on the trust problem and the necessary measures to amend the existing antitrust legislation acquired new vigor and incisiveness.³