N In this assignment we are going to discuss what is meant by agency theory, the agency relationship, and problems of agency theory together with their solutions as well as the assumptions. An agency is characterised as a relationship between two gatherings, one referred to as the main the other known as an operator, whereby an executor speaks to the primary to participate in a transaction with an outsider. An agency relationship gets to be successful once the vital delegates or contract the executor to render an administration for the benefit of the principal. Agency theory explains how to best organise relationships in which one gathering decides the work while another does the work. Agency theory is developed as a framework for analysing
These change agents can bring about more resistance to change as well. Kavanagh & Ashkanay (2006) also go on to state that the general behaviours of leaders, as well as the way in which they deal with the change, are of importance when looking at resistance to change (pg. 2). Depending on the way change agents themselves deal with the change will also affect how change recipients deal with the
Introduction The aim of this paper is to discuss the essence of the attribution and resource-based theories in the context of organizations. The choice for these theories is due to their focus on: the importance of the development of employees as key for competitive advantage; and the importance of alignment between employers and employees in the messages conveyed by HR practices for firm performance. We support the concepts and its implications in the HRM field by providing empirical evidence from the articles discussed throughout this course. We then finalize comparing and discussing the main criticisms of the explanatory power of both theories. Attribution theory Kelley’s attribution theory posits that individuals tend to make causal inferences
Usually it is the management that has more information about the firm. This can lead to an imbalance as the management is in a greater position to manipulate or take advantage of the situation and perhaps not in the firms best interest. Self-interest of the managers, this is often times one of the most common problems arising from principal-agent relationship. Some examples include using firms resources for personal benefit, avoiding positions of high risk even if the outcome would be beneficial to the firm and thereby the owners. Moral hazard where the agent acts in a manner that is inappropriate or inefficient, simply because of information asymmetries.
Limitations and Future Studies Not unlike other research studies, our study of safety preparedness and project performance has limitations. First, the proxy measures have limitations. For example, the Audit and Inspections measures of the independent variable, Safety Plan, primarily measure the percentage of compliance and completeness, but not the quality of the safety management process. Furthermore, there are minor differences in the content of the Audit and Inspections questions over the years. Second, contrary to the directionality in Hypothesis 1a, we found support for a negative relationship between a Culture of Safety, measured as Certifications, and Project Performance.
Managers are motivated to seriously concern service guarantees, because they emphasize the financial expenditure of quality failures 3. With service guarantees, firms are required to build effective systems to generate meaningful customer feedback and develop corresponding courses of action 4. Guarantees require service organizations to understand reasons of failure and motivate them to identify and manage potential fail points 5.
Abstract The aim of this paper is to study how to mitigate and avoid the perils of hubristic leadership in an organization by using risk management concept. The objective of this study is to identify the main factors that influence the hubris leadership and how the perils of hubris leadership might be mitigate and avoid by using risk management concept. Finally, the main factors that influence the hubris leadership is such like excessive self-confidence, self-importance, egotism, an incentive and abrasive, aloofness or arrogance, betrayal of personal trust and overdependence on a mentor and risk control has been used to minimizing the risk of the loss in hubris leadership by using techniques of risk avoidance and risk reduction. The concepts advanced, and implications discussed, provide an insight into the role of leader in reducing hubris and this paper suggest that future research should attempt to examine other factors that may influence the hubris leadership. Keywords: Hubris leadership, perils, risk management 1.0 Introduction Nowadays, leadership is very vital issue in term of successful and failure any company or organization.
Research approach can be categorized into quantitative and qualitative research (Yates, 2004; Creswell, 2009). For this study, both quantitative and qualitative approaches were adopted. The adoption of each of the approaches in any research process come along with their limitations; therefore biases inherent in any of the methods could nullify or neutralize the biases of other methods (Hurmerinta – Peltomaki & Nummela, 2006). Usually, quantitative research conducts a deductive approach to the relationship between theory and research which focus on testing of theory (Bryman & Bell, 2011; Yin, 2008). Conversely, qualitative research emphasizes the words rather than quantification with data.
The importance of Risk Tolerance assessment in financial planning comes from the fact that it provides the financial planners and their clients with a feel on what would make the right investment or protection decisions that fit them well according to their age, level of income, gender, number of independent, marital status, etc. The problem is the difficulty that the financial planner may face when they attempt to measure their clients risk tolerance practically and the misunderstanding ( don’t understand what you mean with misunderstanding??. ( (Dalton & Dalton, 2004) defined the risk tolerance as the willingness of the clients to accept risk in their portfolio investment. Also gave two ways to estimate client’s risk tolerance; the first one is to understand the Clinet’s history with investments .The second is to use a questionnaire which is designed to assess client’s risk tolerance. The combination of these two methods can provide a guideline for a planner to assess client’s risk tolerance. )
The main disadvantage of SCM is that it needs some level of judgment with respect to what trainers identify as critical success factors on the job (Casey, 2006). Dessinger and Moseley (2006) developed the Dessinger-Moseley Full-Scope Evaluation Model (SEM). It aims at integrating formative, summative, confirmative, and meta-evaluation. It helps to formulate judgments about the worth of any performance improvement intervention. However, as pointed out by the authors themselves, the evaluation of