Corporate Governance UK USA

Corporate Governance UK USA A statutory response to Corporate Governance: A Critique Compare and contrast UK and USA responses to Corporate Governance Introduction My dissertation will focus on the examination and the comparison of the corporate governance practices followed in UK and USA. The extensive reforms that have taken place in the particular sector have led to the development of many doubts regarding the effectiveness and the credibility of the corporate governance systems applied on these two countries. For this reason, the examination of the particular issue is considered to be really valuable offering to researchers and managers around the world the chance to understand the various aspects of corporate governance and align (where possible) their business strategies with the relevant corporate governance principles applied on each specific market (referring to the cases of UK and USA). Moreover, this study could help to the identification of any potential weaknesses of the corporate governance policies applied on UK and USA suggesting appropriate reforms on the relevant rules. Background: Business activities around the world have often caused the interest of governments within the particular states. The reason is that all parts of these activities need to be appropriately regulated in order to offer adequate and effective protection to the stakeholders and the public in general (referring mostly to protection from severe financial losses that can threat the viability of the company but even the level of the development of the local economy – when the firm under examination is a well established one, eg Enron). However, because there are many differences in corporate structure internationally, it is necessary for legislators to each specific state to try to adapt the legal principles that are related with business activity with the social and cultural characteristics of each particular state; the size of the firm and its culture should be also taken into consideration. The particular issue was examined by Douglas et al. (1989, 440) who noticed that ‘differ ences in environmental conditions in different country markets, in terms, for example, of market size and growth, rate of technological change, or barriers to entry, may also lead to differences in strategy’. In other words, corporate activity is a complex network of actions and initiatives that need a careful review and close monitoring by the governmental authorities in order to ensure the safety of the transactions without influencing the development of the various corporate projects. As noticed above, the dissertation will focus on the examination of a specific aspect of corporate activity: the corporate governance. The latter can refer to a series of elements within a particular organisation starting from the principles that should be applied to the governance of a firm up to the relationships between the employer (board of directors) and the employees. On the other hand, globally two major corporate governance systems are recognised: the liberal form of corporate governance (UK and USA) in which the interests of shareholders are considered to be the major priority for legislators when developing laws related with business activities. In accordance with the coordinative model (accepted mostly by Europe and Japan) the interests of other participants (in the corporate activities) like employees, customers and suppliers are considered to have a crucial role in the formulation of the laws regulating business activities. This study will refer primarily to the corpora te governance schemes applied in UK and USA. For this reason, the corporate governance system of these two countries will be analytically presented highlighting the potential differences and also the advantages of each one of them within the modern market. From another point of view, the examination of the various aspects of corporate governance cannot be achieved without the analytical presentation of the characteristics of corporate governance through an appropriately customised definition. In this context, it is stated by Buck et al. (2005, 42) that ‘corporate governance and governance institutions in general terms are concerned with the means by which a firms stakeholders control the decisions of senior managers; these stakeholders can include shareholders, executive directors, employees who are not executives, customers, creditors, suppliers (including banks as suppliers of credit), competitors, and the State’. From another point of view, Pedersen (1999, 45) supported that ‘corporate governance the mechanisms by which companies are controlled and directed is a complex subject that consists of owner-manager relations, stakeholder relations, board structures and practices, management compensation, capital struct ure, company law, and other variables’. Both the above definitions present the particular aspects of corporate governance within the modern market; no differentiation in corporate structure seems to be made in accordance with the principles of the state of activity (or the state of origin). On the other hand, the study of Fort (2000, 829) led to the conclusion that ‘corporate governance can be described as the top management process that manages and mediates value creation for, and value transference among, various corporate claimants in a context that ensures accountability to these claimants’. In accordance with the above definition the development of the various aspects of corporate activities is decided by the firm’s managers; the intervention of the state is rather limited. Indeed, the increase of the power of top management in modern businesses around the world is also highlighted by the literature and the empirical research. In a relevant report it is noticed that ‘the principal weakness of corporate governance today is the excessive concentration of power in the hands of top management; rebalancing or equalising this power is a prerequisite for controlling management fraud and promoting accurate financial reporting’ (CPA Journal, 2008). The above described concentration of power can have severe consequences for both the stakeholders and the public in general. In the case of Enron the concentration of power in the firm’s top managers led to the unexpected collapse of the firm and the development of severe turbulences in American economy. Literature Review Corporate governance – general aspects Firms that operate within the modern market have to face a series of challenges related with both their internal and external environment. In this context, it is supported by Wooldridge et al. (2001, 17) that ‘the main challenge for companies in a global economy is to situate themselves in various centers of excellence and weave together different centers of excellence into a global production network’. From a different point of view, Gooderham et al. (1999, 507) noticed that ‘despite their very different assumptions, both rational and institutional explanations of organizational structure and management practices predict similarity among firms that operate in the same industry within the context of a simple country’. In other words, the regulation of business activities today can be effective only if it takes into consideration the various aspects of these activities as they are formulated within the modern market – taking always into consideration t he changes in the needs of the firm’s shareholders but also in the needs of the stakeholders. On the other hand, it is clear that extensive differentiations can be observed in the methods of corporate governance applied to modern firms in accordance with the social and cultural characteristics of these firms but also the social and cultural context of the country in which the firms’ operations are based. The theoretical and empirical research has proved that significant differences can be observed in all aspects of business activities in accordance with the social and cultural characteristics of a specific region – where business activities are mainly developed. The differences mentioned above can refer to specific management issues or they can refer to all business context. In the case of British firms, Scullion (1994, 86) noticed that ‘very few British companies can claim to have a truly international top management team’. Other issues of corporate activity may be differentiated under the influence of the social and cultural trends applied on a specific country/ region. In order to understand the importance of corporate governance for the development of the business activities, we should refer primarily to a clear description of the interests existed within any corporation: the stakeholders from one side and the shareholders from the other. Regarding this issue, it is noticed that ‘stakeholders, broadly defined as society as a whole, are interested in the collateral benefits derived from the success of the enterprise, such as the abundance of a product or a service, a clean environment, or a general rise in the standard of living; stockholders have a dual interest in the success of the enterprise: direct interest as a reward for their investment, and collateral benefit as stakeholders’ (CPA Journal, 2008). The conflict of interests of these two sides can lead to the development of severe turbulences within the organization. On the other hand, in firms that the interests of both these sides are protected it is very likely that there will be no severe problems in the communication and the cooperation between these parties towards the increase of the firm’s performance. It should be noticed that the principles of corporate governance are primarily stated by the governmental authorities (referring to the firms of a particular country). Apart from these orders, the international community can intervene in the business activities presenting a series of standards that should be met in the corporate activities worldwide. OECD is a well known international organization that provides appropriate solutions to a series of issues related with international business activities. The specific organization has set several rules regarding the various aspects of corporate governance. In accordance with these rules: ‘’all shareholders should be treated equally; insider trading and abusive-self dealing should be prohibited; capital structures and arrangements that enable certain shareholders to obtain a degree of control disproportionate to their equity ownership should be disclosed’ (OECD, 2004, 18-19). It is clear from the above rules that inter national organizations can set rules regarding business activities around the world; however these rules can be characterized rather as ‘principles’ of commerce being similar with the ethics held in corporate activities worldwide. Corporate governance in Britain In the case of Britain, the regulation of business activities is realized through the application of a series of legislative texts and orders. The history of business activity in the particular country was examined by Pedersen (1999, 45) who noticed that ‘the industrial revolution took its beginning in the United Kingdom more than 250 years ago; therefore, the hypothesis of greater differentiation in the early industrialized nations than in later industrialized nations can be tested by examining the extent to which the corporate governance structures of U.K. firms are more or less similar to the governance structures of firms in other nations’. In other words, Britain is a country with a significant history in business activities. The importance of the latter in the economy should be considered as extremely high. For this reason the legislator pays a significant attention to the development of the appropriate legal framework for the regulation of the various aspects of c orporate governance. The above assumption is in accordance with the view of Kay (1995, 84) who supported that ‘British statute law is virtually silent on how corporations are to be organised; since the corporation is regarded as a creation of private contract, obligations on companies are mainly there to prevent abuse of the privilege of limited liability, and concern formal matters such as registration and audit’. Because of the above phenomenon, additional legislative texts (as described below) have been introduced and applied in order to support the effective regulation of all corporate governance in British firms (foreign firms that operate in Britain may have the right to claim the application of the laws of their country of origin – it depends on the law applicable on each case taking into account the firm’s articles of association but also the legislation of the country of origin and the country of operations). However, it could be noticed that the British statute law recognizes to the firm’s leaders (board of directors) the right to decide on the firm’s corporate governance. The legal framework applied in UK regarding the corporate governance includes a variety of legislative texts: ‘Common law rules (e.g. directors fiduciary duties). Statute (notably the Companies Act 1985). A companys constitutional documents (the memorandum and articles of association). The Listing Rules, which apply to all companies that are listed on the Official List (or AIM Rules, as appropriate). The Combined Code on Corporate Governance; the Code is supplemented by: the Turnbull Guidance (relating to the internal control requirements of the Code), the Smith Guidance (on audit committees and auditors) and suggestions of good practice from the Higgs Review. Non-legal guidelines issued by bodies that represent institutional investors (such as the Association of British Insurers (ABI), the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) and the Pensions Investment Research Consultants (PIRC). In the context of takeovers of public companies, the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers and the rules of the Takeover Panel apply. The Financial Services Authoritys Code of Market Conduct (relating to the disclosure and use of confidential and price sensitive information and the creation of a false market)’ (Metropolitan Corporate Cousel, 2008) In other words, corporate governance in Britain is regulated by a series of legal texts the most important of which is the Combined Code on Corporate Governance as described above. The specific Code includes provisions that refer to all particular aspects of corporate governance of firms operating in Britain; however because in some cases additional provisions may be required (like in the case of a merger) it is possible that other legislative texts are used in order for the relevant issues to be appropriately addressed. In any case the common law rules and the Companies Act of 1985 are applied (the former are rules that can be applied in any dispute – whenever necessary – whether the latter can be applied in any issue related with the business activity – i.e. not only to the corporate governance). Corporate governance in USA On the other hand, in USA there is no Code for the regulation specifically of the corporate governance issues; instead a series of laws and courts’ decisions can be used in order to resolve problems that are related with the corporate governance of firms operating across the country. There are certain issues that are regulated directly by the law but these are limited; in the high majority of the disputes appeared in the area of firms’ corporate governance various statutes and other legislative texts can be applied. In accordance with a report published recently in USA ‘corporate governance practices in the United States are not regulated by any one particular statute but instead are affected by the governing instruments, the corporate law and the court decisions of each issuer’s state of incorporation, and, in the case of many publicly-owned issuers, by the U.S. federal securities laws and requirements of the national securities markets (Security and Excha nge Commission of Brazil, 2008). On the other hand, it should be noticed that corporate governance issues are likely to be regulated differently by each one of the 50 states of USA. In this context, the Sarbanes-Oxley law which was introduced in 2002 has been formulated in order to offer a valuable legislative base for the regulation of various issues referring to the corporate governance of firms across USA. The above is considered to have influenced also the UK legislation related with the corporate governance. Regarding the specific legislative text it is noticed by Tran (2004) that ‘Sarbanes-Oxley, which called for tighter internal company controls, caused a rethink of   corporate governance laws in the UK as well, with the publication of the Higgs report, written by Derek Higgs, the former investment banker’. The effectiveness of Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 has been extensively criticized. In accordance with Atkins (commissioner in United States Securities and Exchan ge Commission, 2003) the specific legislative text ‘contains many advances for corporate governance and attempts to provide best practices to prevent the misdeeds that have led to the investor losses. Many of these ideas are not new, but have been floating around in one form or another for quite a number of years’ (Atkins, 2003). In other words, Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been introduced in order to resolve specific problems in corporate governance for firms operating in USA; in the long term the achievement of this target can be doubted and only the examination of the consequences of application of this Act in practice could lead to a ‘safe’ assumption regarding the particular issue. It is for this reason that the incorporation of the empirical research (questionnaire) in current study has been considered as necessary. Research question and objectives In accordance with the issues developed above, current study will focus on the regulation of corporate governance in two specific countries: UK and USA. Because the particular issues can include a variety of aspects, it is necessary for the relevant research to be expanded to the following questions: a) which is the current trends in corporate governance around the world, b) which are the major differences between the corporate governance practices followed by the Anglo-American countries and the countries of continental Europe/ Japan, c) which are the benefits and the pitfalls of the statutes and the other legislative texts applied on UK and USA regarding the corporate governance d) which are the most common problems related with the corporate governance in these two countries. References Atkins, P. (2003) Recent Experience With Corporate Governance in the USA, online, available at http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch062603psa.htm Buck, T., Shahrim, A. (2005) The Translation of Corporate Governance Changes across National Cultures: The Case of Germany. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1): 42-69 CPA Journal (2008) A Comprehensive Structure of Corporate Governance in Post-Enron Corporate America http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2004/1204/essentials/p46.htm Fort, T., Schipani, C. (2000) Corporate Governance in a Global Environment: The Search for the Best of All Worlds. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 33(4): 829-859 Kim, H. (1995) Markets, Financial Institutions, and Corporate Governance: Perspectives from Germany. Law and Policy in International Business, 26(2): 371-405 OECD Principles of Corporate Governance (2004), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/18/31557724.pdf Pedersen, T., Thomsen, S. (1999) Business Systems and Corporate Governance. International Studies of Management Organization, 29(2): 43-54 Scullion, H., (1994) ‘Staffing policies and strategic control in British multinationals’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 24(3): 86-97 Security and Exchange Commission of Brazil (2008) available at http://www.cvm.gov.br/ingl/inter/cosra/corpgov/usa-e.asp Tran, M. (2004) USA: Corporate Governance Law Too Strict available at http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11374 Metropolitan Corporate Counsel (2008) Corporate Governance In The UK And U.S. Comparison http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=viewartMonth=DecemberartYear=2005EntryNo=3957

Behavioural Approach

BEHAVIORISM Fred Luthans, James B. Avey and Brett Luthans Definition Behaviorism is a theoretical foundation with roots in psychology with an intentional focus on observable, measurable behavior as the primary unit of analysis (Luthans, Youssef, & Luthans, 2005). Behaviorism systematically analyzes the relationships between an individual’s behavior and environmental contingencies. The study and practice of behaviorism emphasizes predicting and controlling/managing behavior and thus is especially relevant to organization studies.The behaviorism paradigm is in contrast to the popular cognitive psychology theories in that behaviorism is not focused on internal cognitive or affective processes or indirect measures of beliefs, attitudes or feelings. Whereas cognitive based approaches attempt to understand and explain the multifaceted causes and complexity of human behavior, behaviorism is based on the premise that behavior is a function of its environmental consequences or continge ncies (also see Motivation, Contingency Theory).There are four primary historical building blocks of behaviorism. These major foundational contributions are Pavlov’s (1849-1936) classical conditioning experiments, Thorndike’s (1874-1949) law of effect, Watson’s (1878-1958) experiments with human conditioning, and Skinner’s (1904-1990) work and conceptualization of operant conditioning (also see Operant Conditioning). However, applied to organization studies, the most influential application of behaviorism would be Luthans and Kreitner’s (1985) book Organizational Behavior Modification and Beyond.Conceptual Overview Have you ever wondered how children, adults, and even animals learn to respond to and operate in their world? Early in the twentieth century, Thorndike coined the famous law of effect by systematically studying cats in a puzzle box. Thorndike’s law of effect states behaviors followed by positive consequences tend to be strengthene d and increase in subsequent frequency, while those followed by negative consequences tend to weaken and decrease in frequency.Even before Thorndike established the law of effect, a Russian scientist named Ivan Pavlov conditioned several dogs to salivate to the sound of a ringing bell. Originally the bell was sounded with the presentation of food (meat powder, positive consequence) and ultimately the dog’s salivation was in accordance with the bell regardless of food presentation (Pavlov highlighted the stimulus-response phenomenon).In a logical progression, Watson applied the behavioral conditioning mechanism to humans when he conditioned the subject â€Å"little Albert† to fear white rats by associating them with a loud, unpleasant noise (negative consequence). In the 1930’s the famous psychologist B. F. Skinner made a significant discovery for modern behaviorism that led to the modern practice of organizational behavior modification. Using rats and pigeons in controlled environments, his studies found that the consequences of behavior were influential in determining, predicting and controlling that behavior.Skinner highlighted the important distinction between respondent conditioning (Pavlovian S-R connection) where the stimuli elicit the behavior and operant conditioning (the organism operates on the environment in order to obtain the desired consequence, or the R-S connection) where the behavior is a function of the consequence. Skinner’s operant conditioning with the focus on environmental consequences as behavioral determinants instead of antecedent stimuli led to the underlying core premise of modern behaviorism.Based on this scientific foundation, the study of behaviorism suggests that we can predict and modify behavior by strategically controlling (i. e. , managing) the consequences. This well-known practice of managing behavioral contingencies has become known as â€Å"behavior modification. † Modern behaviorism an d behavior modification has been applied to organization studies and performance management in the workplace by Luthans and Kreitner (1985) as â€Å"organizational behavior modification,† or simply O. B.Mod (Luthans and Kreitner, 1985 for a full review) (also see Classical Management, Organizational Behavior). The O. B. Mod. approach to performance management involves five sequential steps: (1) identify critical performance-related behaviors; (2) measure the frequency of those identified behaviors; (3) analyze the antecedents and consequences associated with the behavior within the existing environment; (4) intervene by applying positive consequences/reinforcers contingent upon exhibiting the desired behavior; and (5) evaluate the results by measuring changes in the behavior and its impact on performance.In over 30 years of multiple research studies and applications of this O. B. Mod. approach, Luthans and colleagues ( Stajkovic & Luthans, 1997, 2003), and other behavioral ma nagement scholars have been able to reach consistent, conclusive findings. First, three types of positive consequences/reinforcers result in an increase of desired work related behaviors and performance outcomes when administered contingently. These are: money, performance feedback, and social recognition (Luthans & Stajkovic, 1999).A major finding for managing organizations is that in many cases feedback and/ or recognition, which typically involve no direct cost, often results in similar (and sometimes higher) performance outcomes than monetary reinforcers that are often outside a manager’s direct control. Luthans and colleagues offer guidelines for use of these reinforcers. For example, effective performance feedback must be positive (emphasizing what is right), immediately following the desired behavior, graphic, and specific.Effective social recognition must include personal one-on-one attention and appreciation from the manager communicating to the employee that the des ired behavior has been noticed and admired by the manager versus a standard program where randomly selected employees are recognized regardless of demonstration of desired behaviors (which is what many of the formal recognition programs become over time). Positively reinforcing desired behaviors is significantly more effective in terms of performance impact over time than punishing undesired behaviors.It is important to note that punishment may be necessary when there is a need to immediately cease potentially harmful behavior. For example, in the case of a workplace safety violation (e. g. not wearing a helmet or eye protectors on a construction site), the behavioral management approach would not take time to measure the outcomes and wait for the desired safe behavior to occur in order to administer positive reinforcement. However, in general, the potential long term harm of punishment (e. g. stress, burnout, revenge, turnover, decrease in commitment) may be more than its potential benefits.It is important to point out that behavioral management works across various organizational types, industries, and cultures (Luthans & Stajkovic, 1999). For example, the behavioral management technique has been successfully employed in a Russian factory, where it demonstrated stronger performance outcomes than the participative management technique (Welsh, Luthans, & Sommer, 1993) and most recently with Korean information service providers. Critical Commentary and Future Directions The contributions of behaviorism in general, and more specifically the O.B. Mod. approach to behavioral management, have been very positive in organizational studies. Behaviorism provides understanding of how we learn, operate, and perform in all types of organizations. Organizations achieve their missions, visions, goals, and competitive advantage through the performance and behavior of people. A meta-analysis shows that the application of the O. B. Mod. model in the workplace across multiple i ndustries, levels, and cultures increased performance on average 17 percent (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1997).Despite the overwhelming support of how well behaviorism works in the organization, several limitations to the technique must be highlighted. First, individuals are unique and thus not all people respond the same way to reinforcers. Their desires are not only different, but they may also change over time. However, this is not a major problem when applying O. B. Mod. in the workplace because people in general desire money, feedback and recognition. However, they may vary in the level of intensity in their responses and which reinforcer has a relatively greater impact.Although behaviorism helps us to predict, modify, and change behavior over time, it does not attempt nor intend to understand how or why the phenomenon works. Behaviorism tends not to recognize the complexity of human cognitive processes. Another potential limitation is that in most cases multiple contingencies are sal ient in the context within which behavioral management attempts take place, resulting in complex interactions. These multiple contingencies can become competing contingencies as to which one the behavior links to and its subsequent effects.Behaviorism is not concerned with nor does it account for the social context within which contingent reinforcement (or punishment) takes place. In fact, modern behaviorism including O. B. Mod. treats antecedent factors as cues for the desired behavior. Still another limitation to the behaviorism approach is the requirement for action on behalf of the manager. In behaviorism, if the contingent reinforcement is removed and no longer exists, the desired behavior that was previously reinforced is likely to decrease in frequency and intensity, eventually fading away. This elimination of the controlling consequence is referred to as â€Å"extinction. This implies that managers who practice a behavioral management approach to increase the performance of their staff need to at minimum maintain an intermittent reinforcement schedule in order to avoid this going to extinction. In an attempt to combine the best of both worlds, and to present a more comprehensive and realistic view of human behavior in organizations, many previously radical behaviorists have â€Å"mellowed out† (Luthans & Kreitner, 1985) to adopt a social cognitive approach to understanding behavior (Bandura, 1986) (also see Social Cognition, Self-Efficacy, Cognitive Approach).The social cognitive approach asserts that behavior is the result of a continuous reciprocal three-way interaction between the person (cognition), the environment (physical context, including organizational structure and design; social context, i. e. , other people), and the individual’s past behavior. As opposed to behaviorism where behavior is a function of its contingent consequences, the social cognitive lens argues that behavior is also influenced by the processes of symbolizin g, forethought, observation, self-regulation, and self-reflection (Bandura, 1986).Furthermore, from a social cognitive perspective, the role of contingent reinforcement in enhancing performance can be understood in terms of outcome utility, informative content, and regulatory mechanisms (Stajkovic & Luthans, 2001). The future of behaviorism at least as it is applied to organization studies is likely to continue within the comprehensive theoretical framework of social cognition. Both organization scholars and practitioners realize the value of the objectivity and predictive validity behaviorism in general and O. B. Mod. in particular has on measurable performance impact.However, in today’s complex, ever-changing work environment, radical behaviorism is not comprehensive enough to stand alone. With the increasing emphasis on human resources as the primary source of long term competitive advantage, the confluence of behaviorism theory and cognitive theory through social cognitiv e theory may best accomplish the goals of understanding, prediction, and effective performance management. References Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Luthans, F. , & Kreitner, R. 1985). Organizational Behavior Modification and Beyond. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Luthans, F. , & Stajkovic, A. (1999). Reinforce (not necessarily pay) for performance. Academy of Management Executive, 13, 49-57. Luthans, F. , Youssef, C. , & Luthans, B. (2005). Behaviorism. In Nicholson, N. , Audia, P. , & Pillutla, M. (Eds. ). The Blackwell encyclopedia dictionary of organizational behavior. London: Blackwell. Stajkovic, A. , & Luthans, F. (1997). A meta-analysis of the effects of organizational behavior modification on task performance, 1975-1995.Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1122-1149. Stajkovic, A. , & Luthans, F. (2001). Differential effects of incentive motivators on work performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 580-5 90. Stajkovic, A. , & Luthans, F. (2003). Behavioral management and task performance in organizations: Conceptual background, meta-analysis, and test of alternative models. Personnel Psychology, 56, 155-194. Welsh, D. H. B. , Luthans, F. , & Sommer, S. M. (1993). Managing Russian factory workers: The impact of U. S. -based behavioral and participative techniques. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 58-79.

Decision Making At The University Corporation - 3996 Words

Executive Vice President for Operations: Decision Making at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Kristen Alipit ORG525 Decision Theory in a Global Marketplace Colorado State University Dr. J. Ondracek June 22, 2015 Executive Vice President for Operations: Decision Making at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), a federally funded research and development center in Boulder, Colorado has experienced incredible amounts of change over the last few years and is looking to new processes and structures to make it sustainable in the future. The President’s Council, comprised of the president, the vice president for finance and administration, the†¦show more content†¦Executive Vice President for Operations The current president of UCAR has declared the importance of external relationships with funding agents and scientific organizations and has focused on this area while the internal administrative functions have received less attention. A chief operations officer, or an executive vice president (VP) for operations could fill the current void and give the company administrative oversight and centralization while allowing the president’s focus to remain more external (Cepin, 2011). Adding this role has proven to be beneficial to many organizations like Microsoft, Comcast, and Allstate (Researchers Demystify Role Of COO In New Book, 2006). Also, it is argued that companies such as Hewlett Packard would have benefited from having this role when mergers became difficult (Researchers Demystify Role Of COO In New Book, 2006). This new position would manage the daily operations of the company, including facilities management, budget and finance, purchasing and contracts, human resource s, and possibly information technology (Cepin, 2011). This individual must oversee strategic initiatives and strive to make the internal workings of the organization more efficient and productive (Cepin, 2011). This role should be a partnership with the president and there must be a great amount of trust between the two positions (Researchers Demystify Role Of COO In New Book, 2006). Overall, the VP for

A Brief History of the Country of Morocco

In the Classical Antiquity era, Morocco experienced waves of invaders included Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Romans, Vandals, and Byzantines, but with the arrival of Islam, Morocco developed independent states that kept powerful invaders at bay. Berber Dynasties In 702 the Berbers submitted to the armies of Islam and adopted Islam. The first Moroccan states formed during these years, but many were still ruled by outsiders, some of whom were part of the Umayyad Caliphate that controlled most of northern Africa c. 700 CE. In 1056, a Berber empire arose, however, under the Almoravid Dynasty, and for the next five hundred years, Morocco was governed by Berber dynasties:  the Almoravids (from 1056), Almohads (from 1174), Marinid (from 1296), and Wattasid (from 1465). It was during the Almoravid and Almohad dynasties that Morocco controlled much of North Africa, Spain, and Portugal. In 1238, the Almohad lost control of  the Muslim portion of Spain and Portugal, known then as al-Andalus. The Marinid dynasty attempted to regain it but never succeeded. Revival of Moroccan Power In the mid-1500s, a powerful state again arose in Morocco, under the leadership of the Saadi dynasty that had taken over southern Morocco in the early 1500s. The Saadi defeated the Wattasid in 1554 and then succeeded in holding off incursions by both the Portuguese and Ottoman Empires. In 1603 a succession dispute led to a period of unrest that did not end until 1671 with the formation of the Awalite Dynasty, which still governs Morocco to this day. During the unrest, Portugal had again gained a foothold in Morocco but was again thrown out by the new leaders. European Colonization By the mid-1800s, at a time when the influence of the Ottoman Empire was in decline, France and Spain began taking a great interest in Morocco. The Algeciras Conference (1906) that followed the First Moroccan Crisis formalized Frances special interest in the region (opposed by Germany), and the Treaty of Fez (1912) made Morocco a French protectorate. Spain gained authority over Ifni (to the south) and Tà ©touan to the north. In the 1920s the Rif Berbers of Morocco, under the leadership of Muhammad Abd el-Krim, rebelled against French and Spanish authority. The short-lived Rif republic was crushed by a joint French/Spanish task force in 1926. Independence In 1953 France deposed the nationalist leader and sultan Mohammed V ibn Yusuf, but both nationalist and religious groups called for his return.  France capitulated, and Mohammed V returned in 1955. On the second of March in 1956, French Morocco gained independence. Spanish Morocco, except for the two enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, gained independence in April of 1956. Mohammed V was succeeded by his son, Hasan II ibn Mohammed, upon his death in 1961. Morocco became a constitutional monarchy in 1977. When Hassan II died in 1999 he was succeeded by his thirty-five-year-old son, Mohammed VI ibn al-Hassan. Dispute over Western Sahara When Spain withdrew from the Spanish Sahara in 1976, Morocco claimed sovereignty in the north. The Spanish portions to the south, known as Western Sahara, were supposed to become independent, but Morocco occupied the region in the Green March. Initially, Morocco divided the territory with Mauritania, but when Mauritania withdrew in 1979, Morocco claimed the whole. The status of the territory is a deeply contentious issue, with many international bodies like the United Nations recognizing it as a non-self-governing territory called the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Sources Clancy-Smith, Julia Anne, North Africa, Islam, and the Mediterranean world: from the Almoravids to the Algerian War. (2001).MINURSO Background, United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara. (Accessed 18 June 2015).