Case Studies (Laura Martin) Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Case Studies (Laura Martin) - Research Paper Example In the DCF analysis, the Net Present value has been calculated as the present value of the future net free cash inflows or the revenue of the business, minus the expenses, or the present value of the costs incurred (Mauboussin, 5). In most cases, these two are discounted using the company’s WACC (Stearns, 29). This assumption though made by Laura Martin is a flawed assumption. Mainly, free cash flows depend on the demand in the market, prices in the market, and other external factors in the market, with the market compensating firms; because of taking marketing risks (Chan et al, 3). In most cases, costs should be discounted at a rate higher than the risk free rate (Stearns, 3). This means that discounting the cash flows and the costs at similar rates will significantly reduce the costs; such actions would lead to overhaul of the firm (Chen et al, 3). Martin in these calculations used the beta approach, which measures the co-movements of firms’s equity prices of 1.07 in forecasting 10 years of cash flows in the market and which is affected by so many market variables (Mauboussin, 16). However, equity prices are unstable and change each time depending market business conditions. The multiple analyses assumed that the firm would realize the stated future sales revenue at the end of the forecast period (Chen et al, 3). Firms that have comparable acquisitions, particular in the same industry are used as a base in finding an appropriate range of multiples to use (Stearns, 24). Though multiples are very plausible, they have a problem in that there is no possibility of having a company that is comparable to Cox as firms do use various valuation approaches.. The ‘stealth- Tier’ can be incorporated into the DCF and the multiples analysis. The unused cable capacity of Cox communications can be included into the discounted cash flow analysis, through

Cadbury Company An Analysis of Financial Statements

Cadbury Company An Analysis of Financial Statements This analysis is to examine the performance of Cadbury in 2007 and 2008 from their financial statements which are shown below. There is a significant improvement in Cadburys confection revenues which increased 15% to  £5.4bn. Cadbury increased their price in their selling in 2008 for balancing the rise of their input cost and besides increased the price of their product, Cadbury also sleek their cost base, by decreasing in sales, to save their cost from labours, raw materials, and electricity, also Cadbury reduced their general and administration cost and in central overhead. Because of this movement, from the table of income statement and balance sheet, there is a significant change in their operating margin which is 278 million pounds in 2007 and it increased to 388 million pounds in 2008. There is also a big increase in discontinued operation from 2007 to 2008, which Cadbury made profit 258 million pounds in 2007 but loss 4 million pounds in 2008, this was happened because in 2008, Cadbury got a transaction cost of separation of the Americas Beverages business, in this year, Cadbury completed the demerger of its American Beverages business and sell the Australia Beverages business. From the table data that we had from Cadbury website, here are calculations to know about performance of Cadbury that each calculation has its own purpose. Mainly ratios have three important functions which are: From ratios, it is easier for us to make a conclusion than from a financial statement itself, because sometimes financial statement is very complex, and it is hard for us to draw a conclusion from that. Ratios provide a good benchmark that makes us easier to compare from one company to another. Here are some ratios about performance of Cadbury which all calculation is in million pounds. From this ratio, we compare 3 years financial statements and the ratios are: Profitability Efficiency Investment ratios PROFITABILITY Return on ordinary shareholders funds (ROSF) In 2007 Average shareholders fund = (3696+4173):2 = 3934.5 ROSF = (407 : 3934.5) x 100 = 10.344% In 2008 Average shareholders fund = (4173+3534):2= 3853.5 ROSF = (366 : 3853.5 ) x 100 = 9.5% Return on Capital employed (ROCE) In 2007 Average total assets less current liabilities = ( 6855 + 6724 ) : 2 = 6789.5 ROCE = (278 : 6789.5) x 100 = 4.095% In 2008 Average total assets less current liabilities = (6724 + 5507) : 2 = 6115.5 ROCE = (388 : 6115.5) x 100 = 6.345% Operating Profit Margin In 2007 Operating profit = 278 Operating profit margin = 278 : 4699 x 100 = 5.92% In 2008 Operating profit = 388 Operating profit margin = 388 : 5384 x 100 = 7.21% Gross Profit Margin In 2007 Gross profit margin = (2195 : 4669) x 100 = 47.01% In 2008 Gross profit margin = (2514 : 5384) x 100 = 46.69% EFFICIENCY Inventory days In 2007 Ratio = (821 : 2504) x 365 = 119.67 days (120 days) In 2008 Ratio = (767 : 2870) x 365 = 97.54 days (98 days) Total asset turnover In 2007 2006 = Fixed assets + current asset = 7815 + 2396 + 22 = 10233 2007 = Fixed assets + current asset = 8667 + 2600 + 71 = 11338 Average = (10233 + 11338) : 2 = 10785.5 Ratio = 4699 : 10785.5 = 0.448 In 2008 2007 = Fixed assets + current asset = 8667 + 2600 + 71 = 11338 2008 = Fixed assets + current asset = 5990 + 2635 + 270 = 8895 Average = (11338 + 8895) : 2 = 10116.5 Ratio = 5384 : 10116.5 = 0.532 Net asset turnover In 2007 Average total assets less current liabilities = ( 6855 + 6724 ) : 2 = 6789.5 Ratio = 4699 : 6789.5 = 0.688 In 2008 Average total assets less current liabilities = (6724 + 5507) : 2 = 6115.5 Ratio = 5384 : 6115.5 = 0.88 INVESTMENT RATIOS Dividend cover In 2007 Profit available for dividend = 149 + 258 = 407 Ratio = 407 : 311 = 1.31 In 2008 Profit available for dividend = 370 + (-4) = 366 Ratio = (366 : 295) = 1.24 Dividend Payment Ratio In 2007 Profit available for dividend = 149 + 258 = 407 Ratio = (311 : 407) x 100% = 76% In 2008 Profit available for dividend = 370 + (-4) = 366 Ratio = (295 : 366) x 100% = 81% Summary Based on calculation above, we can summarise a few things. There is a relation between profitability and efficiency, which is ROCE = operating profit margin x asset turnover In 2007 ( 278 : 6789.5 ) = ( 278 : 4699 ) x ( 4699 : 6789.5 ) In 2008 ( 388 : 6115.5 ) = ( 388 : 5384 ) x ( 5384 : 6115.5 ) It means that to improve ROCE, Cadbury has to improve their operating margins, from this Cadbury has increased their sales (increase their price of their product and reduce their cost), this method is effective, that we can see from their turn over which had increased from 4.7 billion pounds to 5.4 billion pounds in 2008. Return on ordinary shareholders funds (ROSF) ROSF means to compares the profit that available for shareholders with their investment in business. ROSF uses average investment in the business, from the calculation of ROSF, we can see that the profit for shareholders had decreased from 2007 to 2008 which was 10.344% in 2007 and 9.5% in 2008, this was happened because in 2008 there was loss because discontinued operation which has explained from above. Gross Profit Margin and Operating Profit Margin Gross profit margin calculates about the difference between cost of manufacturing and the selling price, from that we have calculated on above, there is a slightly decrease from 2007 to 2008 which was 47.01% in 2007 and it was decreased to 46.69%. for operating margin, it calculates about operating profit that Cadbury received in every 100 pounds of sales, in Cadburys financial statement, we can see that there is an increase from 5.92 in 2007 to 7.21 in 2008, which means that in 2007 Cadbury received 5.92% as operating profit and 94.08% going in cost, and also in 2008. Inventory days From this calculation, it calculated about planning how much inventory level that can cover for the sales, it means to calculate how many days that left before you run out your inventory and there will be nothing for your customers to buy. from the calculation, we can see that there was a decrease from 2007 to 2008 in inventory days, which was 120 days in 2007 and 98 days in 2008, it means that Cadbury in 2007 Cadbury had 120 days left to cover their selling so in that time if Cadbury did not produce their product, then they had 120 days to cover before they run out, and it had decreased in 2008 to 98 days. Total asset turnover and Net asset turnover Total asset turnover of Cadbury PLC in 2007 and 2008 were 0.448 and 0.532, whereas their net asset turnover in 2007 and 2008 were 0.688 and 0.88. Total asset turnover is based on total assets while net asset turnover is based on total assets less current liabilities. According to data in 2008, it showed that Cadbury got  £ 0.532 for every  £ 1 of their assets and got  £ 0.88 for every  £ 1 of their net assets. This situation indicated that Cadbury had loss  £ 0.468 per  £ 1 of their assets and had loss  £ 0.12 per  £ 1 of their net assets. Dividend cover and Dividend payment ratio Both of those ratios have same purpose which is to know how much money that the shareholders received from the profit of the company. In 2007, the dividend cover and dividend payment ratio were 1.31 and 76% while the dividend cover and dividend payment ratio in 2008 were 1.24 and 81%. It expressed that Cadbury got some profit which is  £ 1.31 per  £ 1 that Cadbury paid out as dividend in 2007 and they got  £ 1.24 in 2008. Those percentages expressed the amount of profit that is allocated to pay the shareholders as dividend, so 76% and 81% of their profit has been paid out as dividend. The Analysis of Financial Statements of Cadbury Competitor Cadbury has several competitors in confectionary business which are Nestle, Mars, etc. In this case, we would like to compare Cadbury with Nestle because Nestle is the largest food and beverage company in the world. Nestle also produces chocolate, gum, and candy same as Cadbury. The tables of financial statements of Nestle are shown below. According to table that is shown above, we can analyze the financial statements of Nestle. There are several ratios that we can calculate which are: Profitability Return on ordinary shareholders funds (ROSF) In 2007 = 20.79% In 2008 = 37.92% Return on capital employed (ROCE) In 2007 = 20.08% In 2008 = 34.58% Operating profit margin In 2007 = 13.42% In 2008 = 20.91% Gross profit margin In 2007 = 58.13% In 2008 = 56.93% Efficiency Inventory days In 2007 = 75.14 days In 2008 = 72.03 days Total assets turnover In 2007 = 0.98 In 2008 = 1.09 Net assets turnover In 2007 = 1.50 In 2008 = 1.65 Efficiency Acid test ratio In 2007 = 0.61 In 2008 = 0.71 Investment ratios Dividend cover In 2007 = 2.49 times In 2008 = 3.72 times In 2008, turnover of Cadbury and Nestle were  £ 5,384 millions and  £ 55,174.6988 millions, whereas the net profit of Cadbury and Nestle were  £366 millions and  £ 9,563.75502 millions. From those data, we can compare both of their performance in 2008. Cadbury = = 0.068 = 6.8% Nestle = = 0.173 = 17.3% Based on those results, it looks Nestle has a better performance than Cadbury. Nestle has a lot of variety of products that they have sold and Nestle company is also has wider market than Cadbury. The categories of Nestle products are baby foods, breakfast cereals, chocolate and confectionery, beverages, bottled water, dairy products, ice cream, prepared foods, foodservice, and pet care. (ANSWERS.COM http://www.answers.com/topic/nestl-sa). That reason is the one of many reasons that is causing Nestle performance is better than Cadbury. However, if we observe in one category such as chocolate and confectionary, Cadbury has a good market rather than Nestle. Cadbury is the second largest candy factory in the world after Mars and the second largest gum factory in the world after Wrigley.

Robert Louis Stevensons Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Essay -- Stevenson Je

Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde The novella ‘Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde’ was written by Robert Louis Stevenson in the Victorian era. The book was first published in 1886 in England and it brought high success to the author. The final chapter of the novella which is ‘Henry Jekyll’s Full Statement Of The Case’ explores the ways that the author presents Victorian attitudes to the nature of humans. Stevenson explains to the reader that humans have lots of different sides to each other and not just one. He also explains how duplicitous humans are. â€Å"I stood already committed to a profound duplicity of life† Pg69 The text was written in the Victorian era which was around the 1800’s. In those days the Victorian culture was very different to today’s culture. They had strict moral codes to live under as middle class people. They argued that as Victorian values they should look after themselves and their family first and also they should not rely on outside help. Another Victorian value expected of them was to live a life without any sin. Even though the cultural context influences people, not every Victorian person obeyed the values outside the public. The Victorian people had paradoxical views because they would go out drinking and also the porn industry was famous out side public life. Beliefs in religion were having a turn point because of the introduction of science in to the Victorian era. Victorians were expected to live a life of Puritanism. The main characters in this text are Dr Jekyll, Mr Hyde, Mr Utterson and Mr Enfield, Dr Lanyon and Poole the butler. Mr Utterson and Mr Enfield are both Victorian lawyers who are well respected from other people. ‘those who encountered them in th... ...orals are still relevant today because humans in today’s society all have a good and evil side in them like Dr Jekyll did. The nurture of all humans is always different because one day you can be good and the other day you can be full of evil. In my opinion our upbringing doesn’t mean we will be like that because what we learn form outside can influence our personality too. In Dr Jekyll’s case he was brought up to be a Victorian gentleman but he didn’t like the life of a Victorian gentleman as it was boring to him. So the change into Hyde that he had was his type of life as he got to do what he wanted to. Drugs in today’s society are the same as Victorian time but it is commonly known to the public. Where as in Victorian days it was illegal to take drugs. ‘Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ has a social moral to it which tells the reader how to behave in a society.

Discerning Contemporary Approaches towards Effective Education

The pursuit of learning, it must be argued, is an activity that brings into perfection the finest essence of human persons. And the reason for this, as I have mentioned in my previous paper, is quite self-evident: to engage in learning – or any activity analogous to the purposeful acquisition of knowledge – is to nurture the gifts which, at best, summarily render humanity as creatures cut above the rest – i. e. , freewill and rationality (Moore and Bruder 67). Thus, the supreme importance of creating welcome avenues for learning needs to be considered as a task second to none.At the very least, all human persons are, by virtue of their innate superiority, necessitated to constantly strive to create windows of opportunities for higher learning, as well as address ebbs of challenges which, if left unchecked, may end up frustrating the correct methodologies to progressive learning. In view of such felt need, this paper argues for the necessity of framing forward-loo king goals that can best address the contemporary challenges, which otherwise can pose serious threats to the attainment of quality education.To this end, this study deems it appropriate to limit the discussion into unraveling three concrete goals that may be adopted, in the hope of addressing contemporary concerns to education: first, to rethink the model of educational Psychology operative on most learning institution; second, to revolutionize classroom management towards greater inclusion and participation; and third, to re-conceptualize the appreciation of education as that which prepares students for a greater role in the society later on in their otherwise brief lives.It needs to be firstly pointed out however that in itself, education cannot be reduced into these three goals. The human mind, it needs to be argued, is capable of learning many facets of knowledge; and as a consequence, the goals with which each learning facet takes can be taken distinctly from others. For insta nce, if one were to pursue an education in Engineering, the specific goals with which his or her learning process takes must see through the need to develop one’s knowledge of precise mathematical theories on the one hand, and skills relative to concrete application of calculated findings on the other hand.The goal of a person studying Engineering therefore falls more into the acquisition of a knowledge that integrates abstract mathematical theories with concrete skills in fine arts and drawing. One does not compare such goal with, say educating someone who, while mentally impaired, manifests strains of learning nevertheless. The point in contention here lies in the plain recognition that learning can and must always be construed with its varying goals, â€Å"depending on the learner’s frame and chosen field of competence† (Ten Dam and Volman 282).Three Forward-Looking Goals It merits firstly arguing that there is a need to rethink the model of Educational Psych ology operative on many learning institutions nowadays. Herein it would be necessary to cite that there appears to be two major schools of thought being adopted into the conduct of present-day education: the behaviorist and cognitive paradigms. On the one hand, the behaviorist model of education is most often gleaned on learning strategies that take students as ‘passive learners’ – i. e. , as mere reactors to learning stimuli.The stance, as it were, takes on a highly stereotyped understanding of human behavior; it â€Å"takes the mind of a child as a tabula rasa upon which the message of experience is to be written† (Wartofsky 113). On the other hand, the cognitive model of education adopts a paradigm which is exactly the opposite of the behaviorist model. It believes that learning instruction has to promote the mental abilities already intrinsic to human persons, even before they enter their respective learning places – they are mere mental process es that need to be unraveled.When a learner is therefore taken under the acute lenses of cognitive philosophy, the process of developing the unique abilities of abstraction, analysis, cognition, deconstruction, problem solving and self-reflection are the aspects that act as the crux of one’s learning. There is, however, a danger in choosing only one paradigm to adopt. On the one hand, it is certainly unwise to take learners as though they were programmed to uncritically absorb everything that they are being taught.Learning is not entirely about external influences. On the other hand, it is equally self-defeating to regard students as process-induced organisms, without recourse to appreciating their concrete situations. Learning is not completely about internal processes. This is why, it is imperative to rethink the psychological model of Educational. At best, what appears to be a more promising model to adopt is that which seeks to integrate these twin paradigms into a compre hensive model for education.Concretely, this can be achieved by taking learners as â€Å"highly structured organisms, who in their own unique ways, do try to ‘make sense’ of their life experiences in a manner that is not only active but also constructive† (Wartofsky 113). In other words, what Wartofsky correctly notes stems from a keen, if not correct observation that learning is much more than the acquisition of knowledge and the development of innate skills. Learning, instead, brings into fruition one’s knowledge and skills, by charting how one is able to successfully apply these concepts into prolific results.Secondly, the telling need to revolutionize the pedagogies and strategies pertinent to effective classroom instruction represents an unmistakably rapidly-growing concern for most educational institutions. At the very least, the old model of traditional instruction needs to be supplanted with better strategies which are now available in the field. L earning, it needs to be noted, is a delicate process; it must be attended to only by acceptable approaches and inviting programs. For such reason, Kounin believes that classroom management is of the essence in the entire learning process – i.e. , â€Å"good classroom management† must be considered as an indispensable requisite to student’s learning† (qtd. in Emmer and Stough 104). And there are reasons to think the manner by which educators create and design appropriate classroom management styles spells the difference between the welcome promotion of learning and the unfortunate frustration of the same. On the one hand, revolutionizing the contemporary approach to learning necessitates a thorough re-evaluation of the technical aspects of classroom management.This re-evaluation process entails, still according to the suggestions of Kounin, putting a fair amount of effort and energy to apply all the three aspects of classroom management into the learning en vironment: first, to ensure that â€Å"preparations† relative to academic programs and campus regulations are properly articulated and clearly outlined so as to facilitate their effective implementation; second, to determine head-on whether or not the interaction transpiring between the educator and learners during the â€Å"actual† learning process are marked by appropriateness and facility; and third, to determine a program that assesses and monitors how educators are able to â€Å"control† the environment for learning (Vasa 64-66).One may correctly notice that this specific program seeks to guide the learning process before it is undertaken, during its implementation and after the process has been completed. Simply put, the process is comprehensive. And it is with good reasons that a learning institution must adopt such a revolutionary program to guide their respective educational goals and visions into welcome fruition. On the other hand, it has to be likewi se appreciated that any effort to revolutionize classroom management cannot stop at ensuring that the aforesaid technical aspects work effectively in the service of efficiency and facility. With equal or more emphasis, there is a need to revolutionize, in a manner being drastic but progressive, the fundamental concept of the learning process itself.Herein, it is wise to reminded what P. Freire has to say about the matter – i. e. , learning cannot be seen as an asymmetrical process, where teachers dole out incremental nuggets of knowledge and students receive them uncritically as though they were nothing but repositories of data and information. When a learning institution engages in this type of one-way instruction, Freire believes that it adopts an unmistakably restrictive â€Å"banking concept of education†. He believes that under this model, â€Å"knowledge is (considered as) a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consid er to know nothing† (Friere).Instead, Freire maintains that classroom instructions, as indeed the entire process of education, have to revolutionized so as to cater to the need to â€Å"strive for the emergence of consciousness and critical intervention in reality† (Freire). For only when educators see the supreme importance of promoting the learner’s concrete appropriation of his or her learning can learning environments break free from the traditional spoon-feeding model of instruction that has long plagued the many educational systems. Thirdly, there is a certainly a need to re-orient the goal of education in respect to its duty to prepare the learners in discerning their chosen vocations relative the needs of the society later on. Nowadays, education is often seen as a personal ticket to success; an instrument which yields a higher rate of success to the top.More and more therefore, the call to recover the thrust of education from this highly individualistic frame becomes even more relevant. As indeed, the need to underscore the intricate relations between the goals of education and the needs of the society cannot be under-appreciated. In ways of more than one, learning is really about participating in the network of relationships latched in humanity’s basic sociality. Learning is indeed about â€Å"the increasing ability to participate in the social and culture practices which are considered important in the society† (Ten Dam and Volman 285). And this does not entail seeing the education of students as a precursor their filling up certain stereotyped roles which a society demands.Ten Dam and Volman believes that â€Å"adequate participation† in the society â€Å"does not mean behaving according to a fixed set of norms, but being able to deal flexibly with the differences and other choices and possibilities† (284). Thus, learning is about empowering the students to discover their inner gifts while they are at school so that they can use them for the sake of society’s wellbeing later. In the ultimate analysis, it must be recognized that â€Å"the content of education has† indeed something â€Å"to do with society’s need for people who are prepared for the conditions of life in a civil society† (Daniliuk 13). To briefly conclude, this paper ends with a thought that affirms the abiding necessity of conceiving forward-looking goals to help address the contemporary conduct of education.Time is indeed changing fast; and so is the manner by which the world understands education and human learning. In order to adapt, challenges must be met with equivalent responses and adequate solutions. Three concrete suggestions have been raised in this paper: to re-conceptualize the model of educational Psychology, to revolutionize classroom management approaches, and to recover the role of education in respect to the needs of the society. Surely, there are still a lot more chall enges to hurdle; a lot more Goliaths to slay. For the time being, the world can rest assured that for as long as concrete steps are being framed to address educational issues, there can be little doubt that humanity’s can always strive for constant learning. References Daniliuk, A. â€Å"The Role of Education in the Formation of a Civil Society†. Russian Education   Ã‚   and Society, 50, 5, 2008. Emmer, E. & Stough, L. â€Å"Classroom Management: A Critical Part of Educational   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Psychology,   Ã‚   with Implications for Teacher Education†. Educational Psychologist, 32, 2, 2001. Freire, P. â€Å"The ‘Banking’ Concept of Education†. Ten Dam, G. & Volman M. â€Å"Educating for Adulthood or for Citizenship: Social Competence as   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   an Educational Goal†. European Journal of Education, 42, 2, 2007. Vasa, S. (1984). â€Å"Classroom Management: Selected Overview of Literature†. Teacher Education   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Monograph, 1, pp. 64-74. Wartofsky, M. â€Å"On the Creation and Transformation of Norms of Human Development†.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Leonard Cirillo & Seymour Wapner, editors. Value Presuppositions in Theories of   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Human Development. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986.   

Evolution of Leadership Models

What is leadership? And how has the theory on leadership developed? Greenwood (1993) paints an interesting if somewhat surprising picture as he reviews the development of leadership theory from the turn of the twentieth century onward. Greenwood (1993) describes how in the early 1900s the Father of Scientific Management, Frederick Taylor while not directly writing about leadership in his description of the role of the supervisor introduced the matter of traits and its link to situation.He did so as he described the ideal traits to be found in an effective foreman even while acknowledging that no one person would have all those characteristics and so there was the need for by dividing the work into specialized areas. Further, from the nineteenth century Thomas Carlyle examined the characteristics of great men â€Å"positing that the rise to power is rooted in a heroic set of personal talents, skills or physical characteristics† (Heifetz, 1998:16).At the start of the twentieth c entury, other scholars (Bird, 1940, Tead and Metcalf, 1920, Barnard, 1938), also affirmed that successful managers have certain traits. However, in 1948 Stogdill’s seminal work highlighted the inconsistencies in the trait theory studies significantly dismantled the theory noting that: The evidence suggests that leadership is a relation that exists between persons in a social situation, and that persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations†¦. Stogdill, 1974 cited in Greenwood, 1993:7Interestingly, Davis (1934) referring to traits noted there was no checklist for success but stated that leadership characteristic â€Å"they are necessarily a function of the characteristics and requirements of the leader and the particular situation, as well as the innate capacities of the executive himself† (Davis, 1937 cited in Greenwood, 1993:8). By 1955 Koontz and O’Donnell building on his work posited that the trait theory was of little promise noting that leadership involved the power of persuasion upon followers and that the quality of leadership was impacted by certain nvironmental factors. Leadership theory was also influenced by human relation considerations, which emerged around about the same time. These thinkers made the link with leadership as it relates to the leader’s ability to connect with people, to empathise, develop teams and to delegate and emphasized that the follower was central and leadership focused on the needs of the follower. So while the movement did not develop a leadership theory it introduced the linkage between individual needs, observations and group dynamics and appropriate styles of leadership behavior.Blake and Mouton challenged Davis’s theory of behavior stating that â€Å"the dimensions needed for an effective description of operational conduct are attitudinal variables, not behavior variables† (cited in Greenwood, 1993:13). Using the managerial gri d and attitudinal variables the writers posited that there was one best way to lead but differing tactics depending on the situation. This premise is not supported by the situational theory, which focuses on many leadership styles which depends on the situation.In many ways situational theory is a convergence of many schools of thought; although the path to its development has been ‘messy’ and sometimes circuitous. The theory is based on â€Å"leadership effectiveness †¦ strongly tied to a leader being demanding and simultaneously sensitive to the needs of the followers† (Greenwood, 1993:14). It predicts leadership performance based on interaction between leadership personality and the leaders control of the situation. In this regard, the theory is a variance with Blake and Mouton’s view of one best style.Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s (1973 ) classical work supports the contingency theory and described seven leadership styles, which were employed de pending on interrelatedness of three key issues: forces in the manger, the subordinate and the situation. As noted by the writers. the successful manager of men can be primarily characterized neither as a strong leader nor as a permissive one. Rather, he is one who maintains a high batting average in accurately assessing the forces that determine what his most appropriate behavior at any given time. Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973:180) Situational Model versus LMXThe situational approach has evolved into a situational leadership model, which combines the four styles of leadership linked with the nature of the task and the performance readiness of the individuals to determine the most appropriate leadership style. Performance readiness is based on two principal issues ability and willingness. By combining the leadership styles with performance readiness continuum matrix one is able to match performance readiness with leadership style. So for instance a low performance readiness (R1) wou ld require a telling style (S1) (Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson, 2008).The work of Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder (1993) writing on creating readiness for organisational change provide a framework of readiness and urgency, which is related to the Situational Model and supports the premise that readiness is linked to leadership style. On the other hand, the LMX theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) is a more recent theory, which examines the three domains of leadership; that is leader, follower and relationship in order to increase predictability of leadership practices. It incorporates operations and relationship in the leadership process.However, Stage 3 Leadership Making and Stage 4 – Team Making two important elements of the leadership process are still evolving. In my opinion, while the concepts are of interest it has not yet matured sufficient to be a useful tool when compared to the Situational Model. In summary, the situational model while not the end all and be all of leadersh ip theory provides a useful tool for practitioners to apply in their professional practice. Concluding remarks I am amazed at the state of leadership theory despite the many years of intense study. Such is the complexity of the issue.In my own professional practice I often adopt a leadership style that is in line with the contingency theory. With my team the style based on the model tends to be S2 while with some of the pilots countries where there is a concern with preparedness ranging between R1 and R2 I tend to adopt a telling or selling leadership style. Additionally, given the time limitation on the project readiness of the stakeholders can generally be described as low readiness/high urgency. I am not in apposition to replace staff so I will have to rethink my communication strategy ( Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993).I start where I began what is leadership? In a sense I know more about what leadership is not. It is not about traits or personalities nor is it leader focus ed. Leadership in many ways is still an art, it is relational, reflexive, intuitive and is a state within, which the leader and follower are inextricably linked. Denise Forrest Bibliography Armenakis, A. A. , Harris, S. G. & Mossholder, K. W. (1993) ‘Creating readiness for organizational change’, Human Relations, 46 (6), pp. 681-703. Graen, G. B. , & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995) ‘Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective’, The Leadership Quarterly, 6 (2), pp. 219-247. Greenwood, R. G. (1993) ‘Leadership theory: a historical look at its evolution’,Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1 (1), pp. 4-19, Heifetz, R. A. (1998) ‘Values in leadership’. In: Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, pp. 13-27. Hersey, P. , Blanchard, K. H. & Johnson, D. E. (2008) ‘S ituational leadership ®Ã¢â‚¬â„¢: In: Management of organizational behavior: leading human resources. 9th ed. New York: Pearson International, pp. 132-157. Leana, C. R. (1986) ‘Predictors and consequences of delegation’, Academy of Management Journal, 29 (4), pp. 754-774. Raelin, J. A. (2003) Creating leaderful organizations: how to bring outleadership in everyone. San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler. Tannenbaum, R. & Schmidt, W. H. (1973) ‘How to choose a leadership pattern’, Harvard Business Review, 51 (3), pp. 162-180. Evolution of Leadership Models What is leadership? And how has the theory on leadership developed? Greenwood (1993) paints an interesting if somewhat surprising picture as he reviews the development of leadership theory from the turn of the twentieth century onward. Greenwood (1993) describes how in the early 1900s the Father of Scientific Management, Frederick Taylor while not directly writing about leadership in his description of the role of the supervisor introduced the matter of traits and its link to situation.He did so as he described the ideal traits to be found in an effective foreman even while acknowledging that no one person would have all those characteristics and so there was the need for by dividing the work into specialized areas. Further, from the nineteenth century Thomas Carlyle examined the characteristics of great men â€Å"positing that the rise to power is rooted in a heroic set of personal talents, skills or physical characteristics† (Heifetz, 1998:16).At the start of the twentieth c entury, other scholars (Bird, 1940, Tead and Metcalf, 1920, Barnard, 1938), also affirmed that successful managers have certain traits. However, in 1948 Stogdill’s seminal work highlighted the inconsistencies in the trait theory studies significantly dismantled the theory noting that: The evidence suggests that leadership is a relation that exists between persons in a social situation, and that persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations†¦. Stogdill, 1974 cited in Greenwood, 1993:7Interestingly, Davis (1934) referring to traits noted there was no checklist for success but stated that leadership characteristic â€Å"they are necessarily a function of the characteristics and requirements of the leader and the particular situation, as well as the innate capacities of the executive himself† (Davis, 1937 cited in Greenwood, 1993:8). By 1955 Koontz and O’Donnell building on his work posited that the trait theory was of little promise noting that leadership involved the power of persuasion upon followers and that the quality of leadership was impacted by certain nvironmental factors. Leadership theory was also influenced by human relation considerations, which emerged around about the same time. These thinkers made the link with leadership as it relates to the leader’s ability to connect with people, to empathise, develop teams and to delegate and emphasized that the follower was central and leadership focused on the needs of the follower. So while the movement did not develop a leadership theory it introduced the linkage between individual needs, observations and group dynamics and appropriate styles of leadership behavior.Blake and Mouton challenged Davis’s theory of behavior stating that â€Å"the dimensions needed for an effective description of operational conduct are attitudinal variables, not behavior variables† (cited in Greenwood, 1993:13). Using the managerial gri d and attitudinal variables the writers posited that there was one best way to lead but differing tactics depending on the situation. This premise is not supported by the situational theory, which focuses on many leadership styles which depends on the situation.In many ways situational theory is a convergence of many schools of thought; although the path to its development has been ‘messy’ and sometimes circuitous. The theory is based on â€Å"leadership effectiveness †¦ strongly tied to a leader being demanding and simultaneously sensitive to the needs of the followers† (Greenwood, 1993:14). It predicts leadership performance based on interaction between leadership personality and the leaders control of the situation. In this regard, the theory is a variance with Blake and Mouton’s view of one best style.Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s (1973 ) classical work supports the contingency theory and described seven leadership styles, which were employed de pending on interrelatedness of three key issues: forces in the manger, the subordinate and the situation. As noted by the writers. the successful manager of men can be primarily characterized neither as a strong leader nor as a permissive one. Rather, he is one who maintains a high batting average in accurately assessing the forces that determine what his most appropriate behavior at any given time. Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973:180) Situational Model versus LMXThe situational approach has evolved into a situational leadership model, which combines the four styles of leadership linked with the nature of the task and the performance readiness of the individuals to determine the most appropriate leadership style. Performance readiness is based on two principal issues ability and willingness. By combining the leadership styles with performance readiness continuum matrix one is able to match performance readiness with leadership style. So for instance a low performance readiness (R1) wou ld require a telling style (S1) (Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson, 2008).The work of Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder (1993) writing on creating readiness for organisational change provide a framework of readiness and urgency, which is related to the Situational Model and supports the premise that readiness is linked to leadership style. On the other hand, the LMX theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) is a more recent theory, which examines the three domains of leadership; that is leader, follower and relationship in order to increase predictability of leadership practices. It incorporates operations and relationship in the leadership process.However, Stage 3 Leadership Making and Stage 4 – Team Making two important elements of the leadership process are still evolving. In my opinion, while the concepts are of interest it has not yet matured sufficient to be a useful tool when compared to the Situational Model. In summary, the situational model while not the end all and be all of leadersh ip theory provides a useful tool for practitioners to apply in their professional practice. Concluding remarks I am amazed at the state of leadership theory despite the many years of intense study. Such is the complexity of the issue.In my own professional practice I often adopt a leadership style that is in line with the contingency theory. With my team the style based on the model tends to be S2 while with some of the pilots countries where there is a concern with preparedness ranging between R1 and R2 I tend to adopt a telling or selling leadership style. Additionally, given the time limitation on the project readiness of the stakeholders can generally be described as low readiness/high urgency. I am not in apposition to replace staff so I will have to rethink my communication strategy ( Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993).I start where I began what is leadership? In a sense I know more about what leadership is not. It is not about traits or personalities nor is it leader focus ed. Leadership in many ways is still an art, it is relational, reflexive, intuitive and is a state within, which the leader and follower are inextricably linked. Denise Forrest Bibliography Armenakis, A. A. , Harris, S. G. & Mossholder, K. W. (1993) ‘Creating readiness for organizational change’, Human Relations, 46 (6), pp. 681-703. Graen, G. B. , & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995) ‘Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective’, The Leadership Quarterly, 6 (2), pp. 219-247. Greenwood, R. G. (1993) ‘Leadership theory: a historical look at its evolution’,Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1 (1), pp. 4-19, Heifetz, R. A. (1998) ‘Values in leadership’. In: Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, pp. 13-27. Hersey, P. , Blanchard, K. H. & Johnson, D. E. (2008) ‘S ituational leadership ®Ã¢â‚¬â„¢: In: Management of organizational behavior: leading human resources. 9th ed. New York: Pearson International, pp. 132-157. Leana, C. R. (1986) ‘Predictors and consequences of delegation’, Academy of Management Journal, 29 (4), pp. 754-774. Raelin, J. A. (2003) Creating leaderful organizations: how to bring outleadership in everyone. San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler. Tannenbaum, R. & Schmidt, W. H. (1973) ‘How to choose a leadership pattern’, Harvard Business Review, 51 (3), pp. 162-180.