Search results

Presents a critical analysis of the “planned change” and “learning organization” approaches to organizational change, and their underlying classical and quantum paradigms. Drawing on a review of the corresponding paradigms in modern physics, concludes that both approaches are incomplete, as they fail to identify a common unifying basis for the organization. Identifies as a unifying basis the “subjective” aspect of the organization, which is accessible in the consciousness of its individual members; then locates a comprehensive framework for organizational change in the worldview of the ancient Vedic tradition of knowledge. The corresponding strategy for organizational development is based on the utilization of systematic, effective techniques for the development consciousness which have been introduced by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Empirical research has shown these techniques to develop the mental, physiological and social capacities of the individual. It is predicted that this consciousness‐based strategy, applied in the organizational context, will simultaneously strengthen the alignment between the organization’s goals, the development of the individual and the needs of the environment.

While export‐credit insurance is traditionally utilized by exporters to protect foreign receivables, to facilitate domestic financing, or to match credit terms of competitors, there is an interesting fourth function. The exporter targeting a creditworthy foreign customer within a country undergoing a temporary economic disruption can use export‐credit insurance to provide a key addition to the foreign customer's working capital needs. This paper quantifies the working capital gains for a Mexican importer when a U.S. exporter liberalizes payment terms by using export‐credit insurance and so alleviates the importer otherwise confronting sharply higher short‐term domestic borrowing costs and a depreciating peso.

This chapter is an exercise in speaking, letting individuals speak for themselves insofar as possible. As Marx famously put it, “they cannot represent themselves, they must be represented.” The “they” were peasants, potato farmers in 1840s France, and by extension peasants, workers, and other lower class groups, not to mention women and minorities who rarely made it into the historical record, and even more rarely in their own words. To give “voice to the voiceless,” as the now old new social historians of the 1960s and 1970s put it, I consciously include here numerous speakers, arranged in two sets of different voices: quotes in the text and endnotes to further document and amplify points. With this plethora of voices, the aim is not to complicate but to speak clearly, listen carefully, and engage respectfully. To multiply the speakers speaking is the single best way to make two primary points concerning what is most important about the Chief Illiniwek mascot controversy: that the sheer number of individuals speaking out is in itself significant, and that this community colloquy all comes down to identity – who we are, individual identity, communal identity.