Search results

Most of us recognise the importance of building effective relationships in the global arena. However, do we have the skills to develop effective business relationships with others whose attitude and behaviour differs markedly from our own? Are we aware that the same skills that bring success in our own culture may be perceived as rude and inappropriate by another? The first step is to avoid the divisive tendency to put negative labels on those whose behaviour differs from our own. For example, what one person regards as relaxed and easy‐going may be judged by another as lazy and indecisive. The solution is to develop tolerance and patience ‐ easy to say but hard to do. This article identifies cross‐cultural skills that are essential for achieving success, including communicating with others for whom English is not their first language, taking part in team meetings, and understanding the core values of a given country. The article concludes with a short case example of how a newly merged Anglo‐French company learned how to use its differences and strengths when carrying out important team meetings.

The beginning of a training programme is marked by the attitudes participants bring from their organisational environment about the usefulness of the training. There is the enthusiastic, keen, individual who jumps straight in; the neutral, cautious observer type; and the sceptical, even hostile, “prove‐it‐to‐me” type. Even when people are keen to learn, they may be unsure whether what they learn will be relevant and acceptable in their work setting. Although these attitudes often change during the programme, they exert a powerful effect on the course learning climate and on participants' readiness to involve themselves in the training. These attitudes are substantially influenced by the organisational environment from which the participants have come. An understanding of the nature and source of these attitudes can guide the planning of an overall management development strategy and the design of training programmes.

This article is based on the first three of a series of seminars offered by the Association of Teachers of Management on the theme ‘New Developments in Management Development’. Held early in 1980, these were ‘Management Development in Context’ by Mel Berger and Bruce Nixon; ‘Re‐evaluation Counselling Theory and Practice in Management Development’ by Mike Simmons and Rosemary Brennan and, finally, ‘Bioenergetics’ by Ian Ratcliffe. The series was arranged by Bruce Nixon, a member of ATM's executive. Employed by Sun Alliance Insurance as a training manager, his particular interest is to develop ways of helping managers improve their performance that really work. Recently he introduced a successful management development programme in Sun Alliance which drew on research and developments in this area. Acknowledgement is made to Mel Berger, Mike Simmons, Rosemary Brennan and Ian Ratcliffe for their ideas and their permission to bring these ideas together in this article.

For 14 years now I have operated as an outside expert, telling other people how to run their businesses, even their lives. Increasingly, small doubts crept into my mind: how do you know?; are you a fraud? Eventually, these negative thoughts were reversed into a positive goal. “I will put my money where my mouth is”, I thought, “I want to build something that is mine”. So I decided to start up my own business. And that is how MEL'S HOLLYWOOD STARS RESTAURANT was born.

An in‐company approach to improving the competence of middle managers and starting up a constructive problem‐sharing and solving process is decribed. A number of questions on training and application of learning to the job are answered and practical suggestions are offered for improving the effectiveness of management development, based on an assignment undertaken by the author.

Newly appointed managers often see their role as simply “getting the job done.” A management training course run by the General Electric Corporation has shown how they can broaden their horizons.

Project‐based training is a powerful way to tackle the improvement of managerial skills via a problem‐solving approach, but is dependent on the commitment and support of senior managers. A training programme for newly appointed managers (undertaken by GEC at their Dunchurch training centre) benefited from the company's positive commitment to action learning, course sponsorship by the head‐office senior manager, and the programme itself being viewed as part of the company's overall strategy.

Posits that the traditional methods for analysing training needs are obsolete for companies in “high change” environments. Argues that traditional methods focus on the role requirements of the current job, which assumes a relatively stable organization and environment. Presents a new approach which assesses employee training needs in relation to the skills needed to cope with their changing environment. Illustrates this by a case study which demonstrates the process. Concludes by providing examples of the type of skills needed to cope with change which can be identified from the method, including: self‐management – negotiating one′s role and priorities; interface management – identifying and dealing with bottlenecks; interdepartmental awareness and co‐ordination; contracting time, costs and quality standards.

Many organisations are under pressure to diversify products, respond more aggressively to competitors, and reduce inventories. Businesses which operate along traditional, formal lines often cannot adapt sufficiently quickly to these new demands. To be more responsive, people in different functions need to be more collaborative and less insular towards one another. This article, the first of a two part series, describes techniques which can build understanding and active co‐operation between departments and hierarchical levels. The techniques are categorised into six levels: (1) awareness of one another′s perceived pressures and bottlenecks; (2) appreciating how different personal strengths can be complementary; (3) designing procedures for decision making and information flow; (4) setting up temporary teams to tackle company‐wide improvement areas; (5) identifying roles and responsibilities; and (6) changing the formal structure. These techniques are analysed in terms of the usual time‐scale of implementation and of the potential risk of “getting it wrong”.

Analyses a bilateral UK‐French training programme which highlights many areas of the cultural divide which must be addressed if stereotyping is to be avoided. Outlines the consequent design of a multilateral programme for facilitating business skills.