Skills Of A Manager Three Essential Skills Or Competencies Business Essay

Skills Of A Manager Three Essential Skills Or Competencies Business Essay A managers job is varied and complex. Managers need certain skills to perform the duties and activities associated with being a manager A mark of a good leader is to be able to provide consistent motivation to his team encouraging them to attain excellence and quality in their performance. A good leader is always looking for ways to improve production and standards. Here are six management skills you can develop as a leader in working to create a quality effective team The three essential skills or competencies are: 1. Technical skills involve process or technique knowledge and proficiency in a certain specialized field, such as engineering, computers, accounting, or manufacturing. These skills are more important at lower levels of management since these managers are dealing with employees doing the organizations work. The technical skill involves the managers understanding of the nature of job that people under him have to perform. It refers to a persons knowledge and proficiency in any type of process or technique. In a production department, this would mean an understanding of the technicalities of the process of production. Whereas this type of skill and competence seems to be more important at the lower levels of management, its relative importance as a part of the managerial role diminishes as the manager moves to higher positions. In higher functional positions, such as the position of a marketing manager or production manager, the conceptual component, related to these functional areas becomes more important and the technical component becomes less important and the technical component becomes less important. 2. Human Skills involve the ability to interact effectively with people. Managers interact and cooperate with employees. Because managers deal directly with people, this skill is crucial. Managers with good human skills re bale to get best out of their people. They know how to communicate, motivate, lead, and inspire enthusiasm and trust. These skills are equally important at all levels of management. Human skills are also the ability to interact effectively with people at all levels. This skill develops in the manager sufficient ability. a) To recognize the feelings and sentiments of others b) To judge the possible reactions to, and outcomes of various courses of action he may undertake and c) To examine his own concepts and values this may enable him to develop more useful attitudes about himself. 3. Conceptual Skills- involve the formulation of ideas, conceptualization about abstract and complex situations. Managers understand abstract relationships, develop ideas and solve problems creatively. Using these skills, managers must be able to see the organization as a whole. They have to understand the relationships among various subunits, and visualize how organization fits into its border environment. These skills are most important at the top management levels. Conceptual skills refer to the ability of a manager to take a broad and farsighted view of the organization and its future, his ability to think in abstract, his ability to analyze the forces working in a situation, his creative and innovative ability and his ability to assess the environment and the changes taking place in it. In short, it is his ability to conceptualize the environment, the organization, and his won job, so that he can set appropriate goals for his organization, for himself and for his team. This skill seems to increase in importance as a manager move up to higher positions of responsibility in the organization. Thus, technical skill deals with things, human skills concerns people, and conceptual-skill has to do with ideas. A manager is responsible for the successful implementation of management skills. A good manager needs to adhere to the basic management principles and exhibit the basic management skills in his/her personality. Basic Management Skills 1. Leadership: This is one of the most important management skills. Leadership comprises of the efficient organization of the resources in achieving a company goal. Leadership involves the management of human resources with an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of each member of the team. It is about leading the people and guiding them towards the accomplishment of a common goal. Leadership includes a just allocation of work to the resources, planning of the implementation of tasks assigned and helping the team with task completion. 2. Team Building: This is another basic management skill that includes dealing with people, the most important asset of an organization. Encouraging the team members to speak up, come up with ideas and allowing them to make mistakes and learn from them can be described as a team building skill. To build a team, one needs to foster the team spirit in all of the team members. For the team to feel motivated to work, it is important for a manager to cater to their expectations, recognize their strengths and understand where they lack. The building of a team is about building the team spirit in members and maintaining it. The skill lies in knowing the team and encouraging them to take initiative and enthusiastically participate in every venture of the company. 3. Communication and Presentation Skills: After having achieved the knowledge of a certain domain and on having imbibed the technical skills and more importantly self-confidence needed to be a manager, what one may lack are the soft skills, which are equally important in management. The soft skills encompass the communication and presentation skills. A manager should be open to his/her team. A manager should be able to accept constructive criticism. It is important for the manager to communicate his/her plans to the team and accept the team members inputs on the plan of action. Communication is a two-way activity and for it to remain so, a manager needs to possess listening skills. They help a manager understand his/her team members, invite their participation and earn their regard. Good presentation skills help a manager impressively communicate with the team. How you communicate? is as important as what you communicate? So, the presentation skills definitely matter. 4. Decision-making Skill: Many a time, quick decisions have to be made. In such cases it becomes necessary for a manager to grasp the situation, think about what can be done and thoughtfully analyze the consequences of the decision to be made. A problem-solving approach is also considered as one of the basic management skills. To look at a situation analytically, one needs to bear a problem-solving approach. One needs to reason every consequence and come up with the pros and cons of the decision. A manager needs to be a quick thinker. For taking the right decision, one cannot afford to panic. One has to keep his/her cool, be aware of the results of the decisions and be prepared for them. A manager can get opportunities to celebrate a business success. But it is equally probable that a manager is forced to handle the consequences of a wrong decision. Hence while it is necessary to distinguish between the right and the wrong, it is also necessary to be ready to accept the wrongs and deal with them. In short management skills are about making the right decisions and getting them executed by the right people. Thus, management skills are indeed all those things that effective management professionals do! Management Skills A Manager must utilize skills to effectively organize the team, to achieve a successful goal, in the least amount of time, and cost. Management skills are learned in school, by experience, and information gathered from   employees that worked with managers. A manager knows how to lead the team, but never be a dictator Listed below are management skills: Recruit and Interview: Managers recruit and interview the best candidates for the organization. Matching the education, experience, and knowledge, for a specific job. Letting each candidate know, what are the expectations, and receiving any suggestions. Organization: Organizing the team to achieve a specific goal. Delegating each team member, to an assigned task. Remembering, never to over extend responsibilities to one person. Always, having the confidence and giving respect to each member. Budget: Managing a budget is critically important for the financial integrity of any project. Under budgeting a project, may undermine the ability to get the project done on time or failure. Managing a project that is under budget, certainly is most desirable for the cost savings. Motivation: Managers can motivate their staff by praise and incentives, to create a friendly working environment, and having diligent employees, that are less likely to resign. Ethics: Managers should uphold business ethics. Disregarding ethical standards can ruin the reputation of a manager and the loss of respect earned from his employees, and clients. Ethics can be learned, but honesty comes from the heart 8 WAYS TO IMPROVE YOUR MANAGERIAL SKILLS Each year, thousands of people make the switch from staff engineer or scientist to manager. And, although many of us look forward to the change, we find it frustrating once we get there. When we were engineers, we were rewarded for our technical skills and labors in direct proportion to what we accomplished. But now, as a manager, our success is measured not by our own output hut by the output and productivity of the people we supervise. And that sense of not being in direct control can be a frustrating feeling. Fortunately, working with others and getting them to give you their best can be just as rewarding as technical accomplishments . . . once you get the hang of it. Here are eight tips that will help you to manage and to guide your people more effectively. The Human Touch The most valuable qualities you can develop within yourself are patience, kindness, and consideration for other people. Although machines and chemicals dont care whether you scream and curse at them, people do. Your subordinates are not just engineers, scientists, administrators, clerks, and programmers theyre people, first and foremost. People with families and friends, likes and dislikes. People with feelings. Respect them as people and youll get their respect and loyalty in return. But treat them coldly and impersonally and they will lose motivation to perform for you. Corny as it sounds, the Golden Rule Do unto others as you would have others do unto you à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Ëœis a sound, proven management principle. The next time youre about to discipline a worker or voice your displeasure, ask yourself, Would I like to be spoken to the way Im thinking of speaking to him or her? Give your people the same kindness and consideration that you would want to receive if you were in their place. Dont Be Overly Critical As a manager, its part of your job to keep your people on the right track. And that involves pointing out errors and telling them where theyve gone wrong. But some managers are overly critical. Theyre not happy unless they are criticizing. They rarely accomplish much or take on anything new themselves, but they are only too happy to tell others where they went wrong, why theyre doing it incorrectly, and why they could do the job better. Dont be this type of person. Chances are, you have more knowledge and experience in your field than a good many of the people you supervise. But thats why the company made you the boss! Your job is to guide and teach these people not to yell or nit-pick or show them how dumb they are compared to you. Mary Kay Ash, founder and director of Mary Kay Cosmetics, says that successful managers encourage their people instead of criticizing them. Forget their mistakes, she advises, and zero in on one small thing they do right. Praise them and theyll do more things right and discover talents and abilities they never realized they had. Let Them Fail Of course, to follow through on Mary Kays advice, youve got to let your people make some mistakes. Does this shock you? Im not surprised. Most workers expect to be punished for every mistake. Most managers think its a black eye on their record when an employee goofs. But successful managers know that the best way for their people to learn and grow is through experience and that means taking chances and making errors. Give your people the chance to try new skills or tasks without a supervisor looking over their shoulders but only on smaller, less crucial projects. That way, mistakes wont hurt the company and can quickly and easily be corrected. On major projects, where performance is critical, youll want to give as much supervision as is needed to ensure successful completion of the task. Be Available Have you ever been enthusiastic about a project, only to find yourself stuck, unable to continue, while you waited for someone higher up to check your work before giving the go ahead for the next phase? Few things dampen employee motivation more than management inattention. As a manager, you have a million things to worry about besides the report sitting in your mailbox, waiting for your approval. But to the person who wrote that report, each days delay causes frustration, anger, worry, and insecurity. So, although youve got a lot to do, give your first attention to approving, reviewing, and okaying projects in progress. If employees stop by to ask a question or discuss a project, invite them to sit down for a few minutes. If youre pressed for time, set up an appointment for later that day, and keep it. This will let your people know you are genuinely interested in them. And thats something theyll really appreciate. Improve the Workplace People are most productive when they have the right tools and work in pleasant, comfortable surroundings. According to a study by the Buffalo Organization, a comfortable office environment creates an extra $1600 of productivity annually for professionals and managers. Having the right equipment is equally important. One of my clients recently hired a full-time technical writer at a salary of $25,000, but was reluctant to invest $2500 in a word processor for him to use. I explained that, in my experience, a word processor can easily double the productivity of a writer. Therefore, if the writer was expected to produce $25,000 worth of work with a typewriter, he could produce $50,000 with a word processor an extra $25,000 a year in productivity for a $2500 investment! The client bought the computer. Both the company and the writer were delighted with the results. Be aware that you may not be the best judge of what your employees need to do their jobs effectively. Even if youve done the job yourself, someone else may work best with a different set of tools, or in a different setup because each person is different. If your people complain about work conditions, listen. These complaints are usually not made for selfgain, but stem from each workers desire to do the best job possible. And by providing the right equipment or work space, you can achieve enormous increases in output . . . open with a minimal investment. A Personal Interest in People When is the last time you asked your secretary how her son was doing in Little League or how she enjoyed her vacation? Good salespeople know that relating to the customer on a person-to-person level is the fastest way to win friends and sales. Yet many technical managers remain aloof and avoid conversation that does not relate directly to business. Why? Perhaps its because engineers are more comfortable with equations and inanimate objects than with people, and feel uncomfortable in social situations. But just as a salesperson wants to get to know his customer, you can benefit by showing a little personal interest in your people their problems, family life, health, and hobbies. This doesnt have to be insincere or overdone just the type of routine conversation that should naturally pass between people who work closely. If youve been ignoring your employees, get into the habit of taking a few minutes every week (or every day) to say hello and chat for a minute or two If an employee has a personal problem affecting his mood or performance, try to find out what it is and how you might help. Send a card or small gift on important occasions and holidays, such as a 10th anniversary with the firm or a birthday. Often, it is the little things we do for people (such as letting workers with long commutes leave early on a snowy day, or springing for dinner when overtime is required) that determine their loyally to you. Be Open to Ideas You may think the sign of a good manager is to have a department where everybody is busy at work on their assigned tasks. But if your people are merely doing their jobs, theyre only working at about half their potential. A truly productive department is one in which every employee is actively thinking of better, more efficient methods of working ways in which to produce a higher quality product. in less time, at lower cost. To get this kind of innovation from your people, you have to be receptive to new ideas; whats more, you have to encourage your people to produce new ideas. Incentives are one way you can offer a cash bonus, time off, a gift. But a more po ­tent form of motivation is simply the employees knowing that management does listen and does put employee suggestions and ideas to work. Quality Circles, used by Westinghouse and other major firms, are one way of putting this into action The old standby, the suggestion box. is another time tested method. And when you listen to new ideas, be open minded. Dont shoot down a suggestion before youve heard it in full. Many of us are too quick, too eager, to show off our own experience and knowledge and say that something wont work because weve tried it before or we dont do it that way. Well, maybe you did try it before, but that doesnt mean it wont work now. And having done things a certain way in the past doesnt mean youve necessarily been doing them the best way. A good manager is open-minded and receptive to new ideas. Give Your People a Place to Go If a worker doesnt have a place to go a position to aspire to, a promotion to work toward then his job is a dead end. And dead-end workers are usually bored, unhappy, and unproductive. Organize your department so that everyone has opportunity for advancement, so that there is a logical progression up the ladder in terms of title, responsibility, status, and pay. If this isnt possible because your department is too small, perhaps that progression must inevitably lead to jobs outside the department. If so, dont hold people back; instead, encourage them to aim for these goals so that they will put forth their best efforts during all the years they are with you. Planning and Controlling Planning The process of setting goals, developing strategies, and outlining tasks and schedules to accomplish the goals. Controlling Management control describes the means by which the actions of individuals or groups within an organization are constrained to perform certain actions while avoiding other actions in an effort to achieve organizational goals. Management control falls into two broad categories-regulative and normative controls-but within these categories are several types. Planning and controlling are two separate fuctions of management, yet they are closely related. The scope of activities if both are overlapping to each other. Without the basis of planning, controlling activities becomes baseless and without controlling, planning becomes a meaningless exercise. In absense of controlling, no purpose can be served by. Therefore, planning and controlling reinforce each other. According to Billy Goetz, Relationship between the two can be summarized in the following points Planning preceeds controlling and controlling succeeds planning. Planning and controlling are inseperable functions of management. Activities are put on rails by planning and they are kept at right place through controlling. The process of planning and controlling works on Systems Approach which is as follows : Planning  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬  Ã¢â‚¬â„¢Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Results  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬  Ã¢â‚¬â„¢Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Corrective Action Planning and controlling are integral parts of an organization as both are important for smooth running of an enterprise. Planning and controlling reinforce each other. Each drives the other function of management. In the present dynamic environment which affects the organization, the strong relationship between the two is very critical and important. In the present day environment, it is quite likely that planning fails due to some unforeseen events. There controlling comes to the rescue. Once controlling is done effectively, it give us stimulus to make better plans. Therefore, planning and controlling are in separate functions of a business enterprise. Types of Plan A business plan is basically a road map to success for your business. Many individuals have great ideas for businesses, but can never get that business off of the ground. A business plan details all of the facets of a business and explains how it will be successful. If you are thinking of beginning a business, start with a business plan. There a few different types of business plans; as a business owner, you should use these as a guide to thinking about how to make your business work Feasibility Plan A feasibility plan should be the first thing you complete. This outlines the chances that a start-up venture will be successful. It should detail the money needed for the start-up, regular expenses and the price of offered goods and services. Essentially, it examines whether the venture is worth pursuing. Start-Up Plan This is the most common type of business plan. A start-up plan details all of the things you need to do to begin the business. It should cover many details, including the products or services that youll be providing, the marketing strategies you plan to employ, the team or employees that you will be using and a financial analysishow you plan to pay for all of it. Answering these questions can help you think more in-depth about your business venture and put a plan in action. Strategic Plan A strategic plan deals with the strategy you plan to employ for a certain project. Perhaps you plan to launch a new product or offer a new service. Perhaps you want to lower your marketing budget, or restructure the company. This can all be done with a strategy plan, where you brainstorm how a project can be done. Growth Plan A growth plan is necessary for those who own businesses that are moderately successful, and who are ready for the next level: growth. A growth plan details how the business will grow. It gives a target date or a basic itinerary for the projected growth period, and details how that growth will take place: perhaps through aggressive marketing, more investors or better production. Operations Plan An operations plan is an internal plan that is usually not meant for investors or clients, but for the owner and employees only. This should detail how the business is meant to run. It can include upcoming projects, events and milestones for the business. It can also detail different employees responsibilities. Long Term Plan A long-term planning for MIS is essential as its focus is strategic in nature, and are long term in nature and hence its development and budgeting has to be planeed for if MIS is to be used and expanded but some parts are also medium term as in tactical, and short term as in operational. Without a long term plan integrating MIS of all three levels is difficult. Since business plan are by nature long term, its integration with MIS and its support to strategic nature is also long term. MIS is very much part of a business operation as it is like any long term assets, such as building and equipment. Without infomation or MIS, a transaction, plans required to managed becomes very difficult to compete in todays world without information. Short Term Plan In real world business terms, short term plans are plan made to last anywhere between 3 and 12 months. Medium term plans can be between 1 and 3 to 5 years. In general, a plan with a planning horizon of five years or less. Also called short range plan. Single-Use Plans Single-use plans   are   essentially   one-time   use   plans having a specific goal or objective. They may run for a few days or last several years. Projects, programs, and budgets are commonly thought of as single-use plans. Planning is looking ahead and controlling is looking back Standing Plans Standing plans consist of policies,   procedures,   and regulations. They exist to guide you in the absence of higher authority. They enable you to make rational, informed, consistent decisions and plans   without constantly   Ã‚  consulting   Ã‚  higher   Ã‚  levels   Ã‚  of   Ã‚  command. Standing plans exist until canceled or changed by higher authority Planning is looking ahesd and controlling os looking back Planning is Looking Ahead is true because it contributes heavily to success and gives us some control over the future. By, planning we set aside our tasks and deadlines so we can enlarge our mental focus and seeing the bigger picture. By, planning we can set our Personal or organizational goals and for this defiantly we have to look ahead. But, Planning is not ending with such strategies or guidelines. It has relation with Implementation and controls. Because plans are not always proceed as conceived. The control process measures progress towards goal attainment and indicate corrective action if too much deviation is detected. Controlling investigates whether planning was successful. Controlling referred to as terminal management function, takes place after the other functions have been completed. And for this process we have to look back and have to analyze the performance of our planning, organizing and leading. And therefore we have to look back also. So, yes we can say Control is looking back for Investigation, Analysis, and Understandings and for checking our effectiveness and efficiency. Types of Control Regulative Controls Normative Controls Bureaucratic Controls Team Norms Financial Controls Organizational Cultural Norms Quality Controls The following section addresses regulative controls including bureaucratic controls, financial controls, and quality controls. The second section addresses normative controls including team norms and organization cultural norms. REGULATIVE CONTROLS Regulative controls stem from standing policies and standard operating procedures, leading some to criticize regulative controls as outdated and counter-productive. As organizations have become more flexible in recent years by flattening organizational hierarchies, expanding organizational boundaries to include suppliers in inventory management and customers in new product development, forging cooperative alliances with competitors, and developing virtual organizations in which employees are geographically dispersed and may meet only a few time each year, critics point out that regulative controls may prevent rather promote goal attainment. There is some truth to this. Customer service representatives at Holiday Inn are limited in the extent to which they can correct mistakes involving guests. They can move guests to a different room if there is excessive noise in the room next to the guests room. In some instances, guests may get a gift certificate for an additional night at another Holiday Inn if they have had a particularly bad experience. In contrast, customer service representatives at Tokyos Marriott Inn have the latitude to take up to $500 off a customers bill to solve complaints. The actions of customer service representatives at both Holiday Inn and Marriott Inn must follow policies and procedures, yet those at Marriott are likely to feel less constrained and more empowered by Marriotts policies and procedures compared to Holiday Inn customer service representatives. The key in terms of management control is matching regulative controls such as policies and procedures with organizational goals such as customer satisfaction. Each of the three types of regulative controls discussed in the next few paragraphs has the potential to align or misalign organizational goals with regulative controls. The challenge for managers is striking the right balance between too much control and too little. BUREAUCRATIC CONTROLS Bureaucratic controls stem from lines of authority and this authority comes with ones position in the organizational hierarchy. The higher up the chain of command, the more an individual will have authority to dictate policies and procedures. Bureaucratic controls have gotten a bad name and often rightfully so. Organizations placing too much reliance on chain of command authority relationships inhibit flexibility to deal with unexpected events. However, there are ways managers can build flexibility into policies and procedures that make bureaucracies as flexible and able to quickly respond to customer problems as any other form of organizational control. Consider how hospitals, for example, are structured along hierarchical lines of authority. Table 2 Definition and Examples of Regulative Controls Type of Regulative Control Definition Example Bureaucratic Controls Policies and operating procedures Employee handbook Financial Controls Key financial targets Return on investment Quality Controls Acceptable levels of product or process variation Defects per million The Board of Directors is at the top, followed by the CEO and then the Medical Director. Below these top executives are vice presidents with responsibility for overseeing various hospital functions such as human resources, medical records, surgery, and intensive care units. The chain of command in hospitals is clear; a nurse, for example, would not dare increase the dosage of a heart medication to a patient in an intensive care unit without a physicians order. Clearly, this has the potential to slow reaction times-physicians sometimes spread their time across hospital rounds for two or three hospitals and also their individual office practice. Yet, it is the nurses and other direct care providers who have the most contact with patients and are in the best position to rapidly respond to changes in a patients condition. The question bureaucratic controls must address is: How can the chain of command be preserved while also building flexibility and quick response times into the system? One way is through standard operating procedures that delegate responsibility downward. Some hospital respiratory therapy departments, for example, have developed standard operating procedures (in health care terms, therapist-driven protocols or TDPs) with input fro

High Performance Working and Employee Engagement

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The CEO of this J&W PLC Company has asked for a report to senior management on how to improve working system so that overall performance in work can improve. In this report the senior management team is identifying different issues which are leading to low staff work in the organization. This paper provides information about the High performance working and employee engagement which consists of various definitions given by different authors and different types of practices which are helpful in improving organization performance.The main aim of this project is to provide a framework of how high commitment HRM practices help in improving HPW and employee engagement in organization. There have been many papers and research carried out on HRM and work performance. But many have struggled to keep the concept linked together, thus the main aim to this paper to provide the positive bonding link between high commitment HRM practices to develop HPW and employee engagement in work force. INTRODUCTIONIn recent years companies or organizations in every industry like manufacturing, health care services, financial services, consumer products and services, government agencies and information technology and telecommunications sectors etc. , are focusing on improving organizational performance in both short term and long term basis. Now a day’s companies expecting solid performance over short term period and maintain the consistent performance over the long term time period in order to sustain in this competitive market.Organizational performance mainly depends on the issues like human resources management practices, high performance working and high level of employee engagement. From the survey of Sunday times newspaper which is based on employee perceptions of their own work place and policies and processes of the employees, it is revealed that our company (i. e. J&W PLC) employees are unhappy and the staff overall performance is very low and staff of ten get away with doing very little at work and this affects the quality, productivity and profits of organization.High performance working and employee engagement is the operations like how the employees are managed in work to the management and leadership issues of the organization. The senior management team who is responsible for the strategic planning and decision making process needs to identify the brief review of the every component for building blocks of the organization. In this report the main focus is on how to improve the high performance working and employee engagement in the company. To have a high performance working environment and better employee engagement, management should focus on the key issues of high commitment HRM practices.As we the senior management team reviewing the survey of â€Å"Best Companies to work for 2012† published in Sunday times and researching the important practices to improve the organizational overall performance. LITERATURE REVIEW Organizational development and performance outcome reflects from how HR practices are implemented to satisfy the goals of company. Martin et al (2010) suggested that organizational development is an approach to dealing with change which incorporates aspects of culture, working atmosphere, employee commitment and conflict in seeking to achieve organizational effectiveness.The concepts of high performance working and employee engagement are interrelated to the organizational performance and these are the chain practices in the company which are linked with the high commitment HRM practices. EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: Employee engagement is a hot topic in recent years because employers are seeking employee’s motivation, commitment and general support to the business to enhance the organizational performance beyond the normal. The purpose of the employee engagement is to gain the contribution of the mployees than the job expectation. The advantages in implementing the employee engagem ent practices is to gain the employee interest towards work, feeling of value to the organization and chances of improving personal and career development. Definitions: Employee engagement is an effective practice in the organization which produces a better organizational performance and employee career development. It is possible when there is a proper employee commitment, trust, loyalty and motivation to do work to the organization.According to the CIPD et al (2011) employee engagement is a combination of commitment to the organization and helping out in solving the issues of their colleagues, it is more than the job satisfaction and not only motivating employee to engage in work. Sue et al (2009) stated in USP Business Development review employee engagement is â€Å"the discretionary effort that individuals apply for fully utilizing their skills†. Employee engagement is most important for competitiveness in the contemporary business environment.As per The Gallop Organizati on, which studied employee engagement in 7,939 business units in 36 companies, found that employee engagement was positively associated with performance in a variety of areas, including increased customer satisfaction, profitability and productivity, and reduced employee turnover. CIPD et al (2011) identified there are three dimensions of the way of engaging in work by the employees The intellectual engagement shows the employee thinking hard about the job and finding the solutions for the betterment of the job.The affective engagement illustrates the employee feeling positively doing a good job. The social engagement is an opportunity to interact and discuss the work related improvements with the managers and other employees. Key Factors: Every employer expects to achieve extra mile in work and to help them from issues like lack of product quality from their workforce. The following are the important drivers of the employee engagement which may enhance or decrease the engagement in work. Employee factors: * Career development * Job satisfaction * Work/life balance Employer factors: Right people for the right job * Use of skills * Good working environment * Business cost Increasing Employee Engagement: Productivity in organizations cannot be measured in the term of employee satisfaction but can be explained in terms of employee engagement. Organizations that show interest on improving Employee Engagement generally focuses on 1. Organizational culture: Culture within the organization consists of values, HR practices, effectiveness of the strategy, leadership in the organization and effective communication. These issues may influence the employee engagement. . Continuous reinforcement of people focused policies: It exists when the senior management provides information about the resources and provide adequate budgets to accomplish their work & empowering them. This will help in the improving the career development of the employees. 3. Meaningful Metrics: These a re the factors that are essential for the organizational performance. As we discussed above the organizational performance is based upon the people and some of the metrics will naturally move the focus of the people to lead a beneficial change. . Organizational Performance: Depends on high level of trust, pride, satisfaction, and company success. Figure sourced from http://retention. naukrihub. com/images/performance-and-engagement. JPG Increasing the Employee engagement can be improved by periodically concentrating on some of the components: * Provide variety: The repetitive tasks can make a person burn out or so boredom. Every job has many of the repetitive tasks so the employee should look for ways to introduce a variety by rotating duties and responsibilities. Periodic meetings: Managers and the supervisors must be sharing the periodic challenges, achievements, employee feedback receiving and giving constructive feedback, effective communicating with the employee and providing t he employee with financial information. * Indulge in employee development and providing them an open environment. * Communicating openly and clearly with the employees expectations at every level. Ex: vision, priorities & etc. * Working with employees by knowing their interests, goals, stressors etc. show interest in their wellbeing so that they will have a very light and balanced in work and life. Finally celebrating the success in what they achieved in individual & organizational teams. High Performance Working: Belt and Giles et al (2009) stated that only one third of UK companies are following the high performance working practice. The measurements of the high performance working are difficult because of variation in the definitions that are used. Definitions of HPW: According to the Belt and Giles et al (2009) high performance working is a distinctive approach of the management in workplaces in order to enhance the organizational performance with the investment of the employee skills.High performance working has been defined by the many authors; according to the Belt and Giles et al (2009) it is a general approach to managing organizations that aims to stimulate more effective employee involvement and commitment in order to achieve high levels of performance. According to the Ashton and Sung et al (2005) a unique definition that is widely accepted is they are a set of complementary work practices covering three broad categories like high employee involvement practices, human resource practices and reward and commitment practices and these are referred as ‘bundles’ of practices.Martin et al (2010) defined high performance working represents a combination of people, technology, management and productivity which are integrated effectively to provide a competitive advantage on a sustainable basis. High Performance Working Practices: High performance working practices are identified by the many others and as follows Ashton and Sung et al (2005) di d research in association with CIPD recognized 35 HR practices which fell under the broad HR activities 1. High involvement 2. Human resource practices 3. Reward and commitmentAll the 35 HR practices are listed in four dimensions * Employee involvement and autonomy to decision making process( self managed teams, staff suggestions, etc) * Support for employee involvement and performance(appraisals, mentoring, etc) * Rewards for performance(profit sharing, sharing options, etc) * Sharing of information and knowledge(circulating information, a copy of business pan and targets to employees, etc) Snell and Bohlander et al (2007) identified four fundamental principles of HPW practices * Shared informationTraditionally the employers are not interested to provide strategies, plans, and objectives to the employees. This illustrates the prerequisite for employee involvement and empowerment within the organization. * Knowledge development The development must start from the fundamentals and th ey can have opportunity to how to interact with old knowledge or creating new knowledge in respect to the objectives of organizations, customer needs, and process. * Performance reward linkage Employer seeks to encourage the employee by offering rewards to the performance in the organization.There are various types of rewards like promotions, career development and training, praise and greater level of autonomy and delegation. * Egalitarianism It is an interesting concept where the employee must be one of the member of organization rather than being a employee. It is lack of status and recognition in organization everyone has different role to play but are equally important in achieving the success. Huselid et al (1995) recognized the following HPW practices * Focusing on employee merit in promotion decisions Enhanced selectivity in recruitment * Pre employment testing * Internal recruitment for non-entry level jobs * Formal information sharing * Formal job analysis * Provision of f ormal training * Attitude surveys * Quality circles and labor management participation teams * Company incentive plans/profit sharing scheme * Formal grievance procedures * Formal performance appraisals * Performance-related pay HPW practices must implement according to the type, needs and objectives of the organization.For instance McDonald is in food service sector the appraisal system must be done according to the performance of the employee like speed of the work, quality in work, and providing fast services to the customers. In their research Ashton and Sung et al (2005) found that some bundles of HPW practices is more effective in some sectors than the other. For an example if there is a requirement of more creativity in the work like marketing and HR services, HPW practices like sharing knowledge and ideas among the team will yield better results. HPW System:HPW practices like selective recruitment, intensive job training, team working, sharing information, egalitarianism, pe rformance related appraisals system and profit sharing. ————————————————- Employee engagement, commitment, security and motivation Higher employee and organization performance High commitment HRM Practices: This is the new way of approach which was eventually started in the United States and later followed all the developed countries like United Kingdom in which organization mainly focusing the quality of the product rather than the cost.The concept is that a particular bundle of the HR practices has the potential to provide higher levels of productivity. These practices are important in order to improve the employee engagement and high performance working in the organization. Components of High commitment HRM practices: Pfeffer et al (1998) identified seven best practices of high commitment HRM practices. 1. Employment security and internal labor markets: Pfeffer et al (1 998) stated that employment security is the fundamentally underpinning the other six components.Employment security is one of the key issues to the employee to perform better in work because once employees got the job security there is a chance of increasing the company performance. This doesn’t mean that if employee is repeatedly committing mistakes should be retained in the company. Every employer must seek that the employee to retain in the company for long term basis and to contribute to the betterment of the organization. The long continuity of the employee will cut off the costs like recruiting, training and work development programmes. If he organization need compulsory layoffs and to undermine the employment security alternatives like improve multitasking skills of the workers, reducing the labour costs by reducing the wages and over staffing. 2. Selective hiring and sophisticated selection: Now a day’s employers are more focused on to the sophisticated selecti on of the best candidates for job and take more care during recruiting. They are also expecting the good profile candidate who deserves the qualities like team working, social and interpersonal skills than the technical skills.Selective hiring implies the sampling of the candidates who posses good efficient skills in order to perform job. Pfeffer (1998) stated in selective hiring and sophisticated selection by sophisticated interviews and proper employment tests or psychometric tests like general ability tests, personality tests and specific skills test must be perform prior recruiting will aid the organization. These all above practices will help the HR team to provide organization a long term benefits and increase the continuity of the selection decisions. 3. Extensive training, learning and development:After recruiting the skilled applicant extensive training must be provided by the organization. They must be focused on the training for team working and specific skills for the wo rk. For an instance, MNC’s in knowledge processing outsourcing train their new staff with specific job related training on typing and MS office. Training and development must be restricted only for the new employees but also for the existing employees in order to improve the skills for their future. Outcomes depends on the how much the employer is investing funds for training, development and learning. 4.Employment involvement, information sharing and worker voice: Employment involvement and information sharing helps to achieve increase the problem solving groups and project teams and lowers the communication. Employee involvement is attained by the opening communication regarding the financial performance, strategy and operations in the organization will directly improve the trust and positive environment in the organization. For an instance to improve team working HR practices must implement such that employees can be to able to offer their suggestions for the betterment of the organization. 5. Self managed teams/ team working:Pfeffer et al (1998) stated that teamwork is typically seen as leading to better decision making and the achievement of more creative solutions. These practices are very difficult to implement in the practices but strengthen the management control. There may be the chances of the peer group pressures and boring low level jobs, these are the reasons why self managed teams is very difficult to intrude. 6. High performance contingent on performance: Pfeffer et al (1998) stated that there are two components in this practice; one is performance related pay and second is providing more compensation than normal.This type of practice attains the high quality of labor due to proving a need to pay for the performance. 7. Reduction of staff differences or harmonization: In retail organizations the lower level staffs are very important assets because they are the persons who have got direct contact with the customers. They must be treated a s the same as senior management and must encourage them to come up with some ideas with open management. This can be attained by the staff uniforms, shared canteens and parking. These types of practices will help the management in creating the positive and pen environment in company. 8. Work-life balance:This is a new concept which was focused by the many organizations in order to improve the work life balance. According to the Sunday times survey (2012), in recent years there is an increase in the females than the males in senior positions. There is a chance of burden on the females who cares the family and certainly need to fulfill their responsibilities in the work. Pfeffer et al (1998) stated that if the work-life imbalance in the employees there is a chance of lowering performance outcome. The Sunday Times published â€Å"Best Companies to Work for 2012† on 11 March 2012 edited by Dominic O'Connell, business editor.This is 12th annual publication of Britain's most dynami c and engaging workplaces. The leading 325 organizations are recognized in the four lists and they are the best organizations to work in Britain and voted by their workers. 1. 100 best small companies 2. 100 best companies 3. 25 best big companies 4. 100 best not for profit organizations Methodology of the survey: The â€Å"Sunday Times list of the 100 best companies to work for 2012† is derived from the views of employees and the policies and processes of employers. It identifies best practice and ranks organizations according by their results in eight key indicators of staff engagement.The survey contains 70 questions in measuring eight factors in workplace. These elements were used to determine the final company rankings. The eight key factors of employee engagement are the employee experience of their workplace in the following areas. 1. Leadership:  How employees feel about the head of the company and its senior managers 2. Wellbeing:  How staff feels about the stres s, pressure and the balance between their work and home duties. 3. Giving something back:  How much companies are thought by their staff to put back into society generally and the local community. . Personal growth:  To what extent staff feels they are stretched and challenged by their job 5. My manager:  How staff feels towards their immediate boss and day-to-day managers 6. My company:  Feelings about the company people work. 7. My team:  How staff feels about their colleagues. 8. Fair deal:  How happy the workforce is with their pay and benefits People completing the employee survey responded to each statement by indicating their level of agreement on a seven-point scale ranging from â€Å"strongly disagree† [1] to â€Å"strongly agree† [7].In all profiles, the score percentage on each question is mentioned. In this report to CEO, we have selected five best big companies from â€Å"The Sunday Times Survey† and identified the key factors for improv ing the organizational performance. The sampling of the companies is done on the sector in which they are serving. The table witnesses the percentage of employee voted for different issues of employee engagement practices in different companies. American Express UK Company: | Percentage of employees| They believe they can contribute to the company success| 79%| Love working with the organization| 72%|They feel they can make difference with in it| 75%| Bosses care for employees job satisfaction| 70%| Bosses talk openly with them| 79%| They believe they can contribute to company success| 79%| They feel that company leadership is inspirational| 71%| Managers share important information with them| 75%| Mc Donald’s Company: | Percentage of employees| Staff says they have confidence in skills of their managers| 76%| Everyone is treated fairly| 70%| They are loving it| 70%| Managers deals with the issues instead of avoiding| 64%| Confidence in managers| 77%|Training in the job is gr eat| 73%| Happy with pay and benefits they get| 65%| They are fairly paid| 60%| Iceland Company: | Percentage of employees| They love working for the company| 79%| Staff feel that boss runs the company on sound values| 67%| They are aware of what is expected from them| 85%| Managers help to fulfill their potentials| 78%| Happy with pay and benefits| 81%| Boss gives inspiration to them| 76%| Valuable success to company| 80%| Proud to work for the company| 81%| PwC Company: | Percentage of employees| Employee feel proud to work for company| 83%|They are excited about company uptrend in performance| 70%| Chairman as an inspiration leader| 77%| Staff say senior bosses are good listeners| 67%| Company is doing bit for the environment| 76%| Plenty opportunities to grow and learn| 72%| Managers are role models| 69%| Staff experience is valuable for future| 82%| Homebase Company: | Percentage of employees| Staff says that job is not interfering in home duties (Work-life balance)| 73%| They don’t feel they spent much time working| 69%| Stress levels low| 78%| They believe contribute to company success| 77%|They feel they can make difference with init| 76%| Employee are happy with pay and benefits| 50%| Employees have a great support to provide service| 71%| CONCLUSION J&W PLC is a work place where there is no team work among workers and worker are not loyal to their jobs, it has been noticed that employees of J&W Plc are doing less work then they should. In order to rectify this problem this organization must improve wide scale of HRM activities where motivation, task analyzing and work segregation should be considered.This paper has proved that HRM is really necessary part of an organization which wants to be at the top of their game, and always wants to have the upper hand in market. HRM always takes care of employees and their related areas which are interviewing, improving motivation, proper training and implementation of company’s policies. Not only concentrating on the recruitment and training, they need to focus on the career development of the employee, employee motivation, employee compensation and benefits and to provide good work-life balance.These implications in the HR management practices will yield good employee trust and commitment towards the organization which helps to build employee engagement. To be successful every organization should have high level of employee’s engagement. This only can be achieved by having a workflow where any employee can see opportunity to advance in career, higher job satisfaction and work-life balance. To gain higher employee engagement the employer must do surveys on the employees and questioners about the work force, this assists the organization to identify the black spots within the organization.After identifying the key issues in the work force, management needs to focus on the implementing of the practices to improve the employee engagement as mentioned already in the liter ature review. This procedure may assist the organization to improve the employee engagement and it also depends on the type of the organization and availability of funds. It is witnessed in â€Å"The Sunday Times Survey 2012†, the five companies which are selected from the 25 best big companies the practices which in turn yields higher employee engagement.The survey review shows the critical issues from the employee’s point of view and the issues in work force are mentioned in the tables. For such practices organization should have High Performance Work System through which employees can project on what they are doing and try to improve there working standards by using high commitment and high involvement working practices. For improving HPW in employees, organization should provide proper job training, improve team working, performance related appraisals system and pay, profit sharing to the employees.It creates the high involvement, security and provides high motivat ion to perform work and improves the organization performance. These practices are the chain based and the results from the practices are satisfactory. In order to implement these practices management must concentrate on the employee surveys and need to decide which HPW practices will help the organization to improve over all performance. In short the HPW practices difficult to implement and need every part of organization to work in a synchronization and coordinated manner to get maximum output. RECOMMENDATIONSAs per the discussion and reviewing all aspects of employee engagement and HPWP system there is always a need for an organization to have a personalized model of high performance work system for being more effective and profitable. So the recommended model for HPWP should have main five factors for implementing HPW working practice and employee engagement to withstand competition from competitors. In order to implement this model a full attention of employee is required, for that HRM need to evaluate all the employees and if necessary hire new persons and fire old employees whose performance is very low for long duration.Employee surveys must be done to identify the issues in their work force. After reviewing the survey management needs to highlight the key areas of improving employee engagement and high performance working in the organization. American Express UK and Homebase are two companies in the 25 best big companies for 2012; these two companies are not there in the â€Å"Sunday Times Survey 2011† but rose dramatically to the higher peak in overall performance by 2012, by implementing good HR practices which increases employee engagement and high performance working.The 70% employees of McDonald’s and 79% of employees in Iceland voted that they love the work. This illustrates the job satisfaction, happy with the compensations and benefits and motivation in work force. This is the reason why Iceland holds Rank 1in the Sunday Times Su rvey. So, this model will improve work force and make them engage at work. This model can work only when every department is in coordinated with each other and focusing on the company betterment. Recommendation Draft TemplatePriority| Action| Business Justification| Benefits| Specific Intervention| Time Frame| Who| Cost| Method of monitoring| Consequence of not doing| 1| Sophisticated employee recruiting| For hiring skilled work force| To improve the quality of work| By Psychometric tests, aptitude tests and personality tests. | Short term| Human Resource management and senior management team. | Less cost. Efficient knowledge &relevant experience required. | Skills of the employees must be carefully monitored| Chance of hiring unskilled worker for the job. 2| Extensive training and development| Improving employee engagement in the work force| To improve the employee in specific skill development| Good resources are required | Long term | Senior management and skilled executives| Inv estment required| Constant and consistent supervision required| Company cannot withstand with competition| 3| Team working | To provide high performance working in company| To improve good communication between staff and to achieve creative solutions| Selecting the team members| Long term| Team leaders | Less cost| By team performance results| The development of the company will be staged | 4| Work life balance| To improve employee commitment | To improve the employee involvement in work| Recognizing the stress levels by questioners| Long term| Managers| Cost efficient| Supervised by the feeling of willingness to work| Chance of lowering the company performance| 5 | Performancerelated pay| To improve trust and commitment| To improve the high performance working| Performance pay must be given by reaching particular targets| Short term| HR and Account department| Sufficient funds required| Pay records must be documented| Lowers the quality of labor| REFERENCES 1. Martin, J (2010). Key concepts in human resource management. Sage publications. 2. CIPD (2011). Employee engagement, facesheet. Available at www. cipd. co. uk 3. CIPD (2011). Employee engagement for sustainable organizational performance, practical tools, available at www. cipd. co. UK/hrresources/practical tools. 4. McCauley, S (2009). Employee engagement for outstanding performance, USP business development Ltd, available at http://www. uspbd. com/Employee_Engagement_Business_Performance. aspx. 5. McCauley, S (2009). 1 leading causes of disengagement, USP business development Ltd, available at http://www. uspbd. com/Employee_Engagement_Business_Performance. aspx. 6. Belt, V and Giles, L (2009). High performance working: A synthesis of key literature, UK Commission for Employment Skills, available at www. ukces. org. uk. 7. Ashton, D and Sung, J (2005). High performance work practices: linking strategy and skills to perform outcomes. 8. CIPD (2008). â€Å"High performance working†, facesheet. Av ailable at WWW. CIPD. co. uk (last accessed september2008). 9. Snell, S and Bohlander, G (2007). Human resource management-International student edition. Manson, OH; Thomson south Western. 10. Huselid, M. A (1995). The impact of human resource management on turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance†, Academy of management Journal, 38: pages 635-672. 11. Pfeffer, J (1998). The Human Equation: building profits by putting people first, Harvard business school press, Boston, MA, US. 12. Connell, D (2012). â€Å"The Sunday Times 100 best companies†, available at http://features. thesundaytimes. co. uk/public/best100companies/live/template. BIBILOGRAPHY 1. Holmes, T A (2010) â€Å"ten characteristics in a high performance work team†. Publication. Available at www. doctorholmes. net. Last modified January 10 2010. 2. Tamkin, P (2004). â€Å"High performance work practices†, Institute of employment studies, www. Employment-studies. co. uk. 3. Empl oyee Engagement, copyright 2007, WWW. retention. aukrihub. com. 4. Green, F (2006). Demanding Work: The Paradox of Job Quality in the Affluent Economy, Princeton, NJ; Oxford: Princeton University Press. 5. Konrad, A (2006). Employee engagement and firm performance. Available: http://www. iveybusinessjournal. com/topics/the-workplace/engaging-employees-through-high-involvement-work-practices. Last accessed 11th march 2012. 6. Macleod, D and Clarke, N (2010). Engaging for success. Available: http://www. bis. gov. uk/files/file52215. pdf. Last accessed 11th march 2012. 7. RAGS, B (2006). Corporation organizations. Available: http://www. bookrags. com/research/corporate-organizations-eos-01/. Last

New Developments in Technology Management

The teaching of technology management has a long history in business schools. However, the nature and focus of such curricula have changed in recent years, due to several trends. The rise of a knowledge-based economy has brought greater attention to the management and commercialization of intellectual property (Markman, Siegel, & Wright, 2008).Questions regarding the appropriate business models to foster successful commercialization have been further complicated by the rise of â€Å"open-source† innovation (e. g. , Linux, a software company that has captured substantial market share). And new institutions (e. g. , incubators and science parks; Phan, Siegel, & Wright, 2005) and new organizational forms (e. g. , research joint ventures [RJVs], and technology alliances) have emerged that may also have profound effects on technology management education.Nonprofit institutions, most notably universities and federal laboratories, have become much more aggressive in protecting and ex ploiting their intellectual property (Siegel & Wright, 2007). Such institutions, es324 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only. pecially universities, are also working much more closely with industry and government.These trends and growing involvement of government and nongovernmental institutions in innovation and commercialization have led to growing international recognition of the narrowness of technology management education as it is practiced today. Some business and engineering schools have responded to these developments by designing new courses and curricula related to technological entrepreneurship. Some countries with centralized educational systems (e. g. , Japan, Singapore, and Ireland) are graduating â€Å"bilingual engineers† with capabilities in technology and business.Yet, this trend of marrying technology with management education is still far from being in the mainstream. Another important development in stimulating and changing the nature of the demand for technology management education is the rise of knowledge and intellectual property management as a professional field. In many countries, national governments have supported these initiatives by en- 2009 Phan, Siegel, and Wright 325 acting legislation to facilitate public–private research partnerships, technology transfer (through patenting and licensing) from universities to firms (e. g. , the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980), and collaborative research.For example, the EU, China, and Singapore have established technology-based venture funds to stimulate the development of technologybased start-up companies. In the United States, the national â€Å"public sector venture capital† for technology-based new ventures, the Small Business Inn ovation Research (SBIR) program and numerous state-level programs with similar goals (e. g. , Ben Franklin Technology Partners, Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Technology Development Corporation) have propelled technology transfer issues to the forefront of university technology management curricula.Government is also providing subsidies for research joint ventures involving universities and firms (e. g. , the Commerce Department’s Advanced Technology Program/Technology Innovation Program), shared use of expertise and laboratory facilities (e. g. , the National Science Foundation’s Engineering Research Centers and Industry– University Cooperative Research Centers), and programs to promote management and entrepreneurship education among scientists and engineers (e. g. the Science Enterprise Challenge in the U. K. ). These and other trends discussed here have led to experimentation and innovation in technology management pedagogy and content, which is the focu s of this special issue. For example, it is obvious that the rise in collaborative research and commercialization has important educational implications, since it implies that team-work has become more important in science and engineering, especially when both innovation and commercialization are involved.This has resulted in the increasingly popular use of real-life team projects as the primary method of delivering discovery-based learning. Our purpose in this special issue is to assess the implications of these trends for technology management curricula in business schools. In spring 2008, we issued an open Call for Papers on the Academy of Management website, the Social Science Research Network, and other venues. We received 38 manuscripts, which were reviewed according to AMLE standards for the Research & Reviews section.Papers were also solicited for the Essays, Dialogues, & Interviews and Exemplary Contribution sections, which were subject to the usual peer-review process. Bas ed on the results, we selected several manuscripts for inclusion which are summarized in Table 1. The remainder of this essay is organized as fol- lows: First, we describe recent public policy changes, which have promoted university– industry partnerships, collaborative research, and technology transfer from universities and federal labs to the private sector.Then, we discuss the educational implications of these trends, drawing on some of the lessons learned from the papers in special issue. Finally, we outline an agenda for additional research on technology management education. PUBLIC POLICY INITIATIVES INFLUENCING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT In recent decades, we have witnessed rapid growth in the incidence of a variety of research partnerships and technology commercialization involving corporations, universities, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies.This growth can be attributed to three policy initiatives: †¢ Policies promoting the transfer of technology from universities and federal labs to firms †¢ A large increase in the incidence of public– private partnerships †¢ Relaxation of antitrust enforcement related to collaborative research Examples of such technology partnerships are research joint ventures, strategic alliances and networks involving high-technology organizations, industry consortia (e. g. SEMATECH), cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) involving federal labs and firms, engineering research centers (ERCs), and industry– university cooperative research centers (IUCRCs) sponsored by the U. S. National Science Foundation, federally funded research and development centers, science parks and high-technology incubators (many of which are located at universities), and licensing and sponsored research agreements involving universities, government laboratories, firms, and university-based start-ups. Table 2 summarizes the key U. S. egislation promoting government– university œindustry partnerships, collaborative research, and technology transfer/commercialization. The most important legislation in this regard is the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980, which dramatically changed the rules of the game with respect to the ownership of intellectual property rights of technologies emerging from federal research grants. Bayh–Dole conferred the right to universities to patent and claim the scientific discoveries arising from U. S. government-funded research, instituted a uniform patent policy across federal agencies, and lifted numerous restrictions on technology licensing.As a result of this legis- 326 Academy of Management Learning & Education September TABLE 1 Summary of Papers Authors Barr, Baker, Markham, & Kingon Key Research Question Discovering how to teach technological entrepreneurship skills that will help bridge the â€Å"valley of death† in COT between creation of technology and emergence of a commercial venture. Theory/Framework Van Burg et al. (2008) science-based design framework of five factors critical to enhance science-based start-ups; cognitive theory; theory of planned action.Data/Methods Analysis of development of a COT program for MBA, PhD, and master’s students at North Carolina State over 14year period. Findings/Conclusions Enactive mastery experiences have to be perceived as authentic and real to have desired effect; importance of loosely structured handson engagement; program needs to be real, intensive, interdisciplinary and iterative; need to create temporal checkpoints, decenter business plans, to structure large blocks of time, to emphasize and balance team diversity, generate technology flow, beware of idiosyncratic heuristics.Significant positive effects of the program on student perceptions of the multidisciplinary capabilities needed to operate in a technological business environment. Thursby, Thursby, & Fuller What are the benefits and challenges of integrated approaches to graduate edu cation in technological entrepreneurship? Theory of the Firm—Economic Approach to Evaluation. Austin, Nolan, & O’Donnell How to design a student experience in technology management that addresses the learning cycle more completely, while maintaining very high levels of student engagement. Experiential learning theory.Ordered logit analysis of program assessment data including pre- and postsurveys and a control group relating to a NSF-sponsored integrated program at Georgia Tech and Emory University involving PhD, MBA, and JD students. Programs at universities in two countries, MNC executives, and open enrollment course at a business school; combination of case and traditional lecture-based approaches; narrative approach based on monomyth; student course feedback and follow-up 1 year later. Verzat, Byrne, & Fayolle Boni, Weingart, & Evenson What teaching methods can be used to create entrepreneurial engineers that have a keen sense of teamwork?Are games an appropriate p edagogical device to meet the specific learning needs of engineering students? Can games help engineering students learn about teamwork? How to teach skills of creating disruptive innovations and develop new business opportunities through blending entrepreneurial thought and action, design thinking, and team building. Education science and team process; Kirkpatrick’s 4level hierarchy of evaluation. Use of team games in a traditional elitist French teaching context that emphasizes individual learning; evaluation data collected from 111 groups on initial reaction to the game and interviews 3 months later.Approach works at multiple student levels with same materials but emphasis differs across groups; able to use with introductory and capstone courses; approach acts as a leveler in class as all can engage with the ‘story’; issues concerning integration of supplementary materials, lack of ‘closure’ in each class, use of fictionalized cases. Games rated a positive reaction from students despite being an informal departure from normal formal approach; real learning outcome in exposing students to importance of team working.Disruptive innovation, entrepreneurial leadership, design thinking, and team building. Capstone course for MBA Entrepreneurship in Organizations & Design master’s students at Carnegie Mellon involving team teaching; Multidisciplinary teams of designers, technologists, and business student entrepreneurs. It is important to blend three perspectives for effective commercialization of innovation: (1) entrepreneurial thought and action, (2) design thinking, and (3) teambuilding.A key feature of this project-based course is the collaboration between MBA students and School of Design students, which leads to the development of new business opportunities. (table continues) 2009 Phan, Siegel, and Wright 327 TABLE 1 Continued Authors Clarysse, Mosey, & Lambrecht Key Research Question What are implications for developm ents in technology management education of contemporary challenges such as globalization, open innovation, and the need for corporate renewal (and venturing)? Theory/Framework Technology management skills provision.Data/Methods Qualitative analysis based on interviews with 10 technology management education demand- and supply-side actors in universities, consultancies, and corporations across Europe. Findings/Conclusions Technology Management Educations is a dynamic field moving from traditional MBA focused programs towards more entrepreneurial ‘bootcamps’, from a case study oriented teaching style towards a mentoring approach and from an emphasis upon general business towards working across disciplines yet being sensitive to underlying technologies; a shift from general to specific skills; Linkages between business schools and technology chools is an important element of this change. Courses in IP management, management of industrial R&D, systems architecture and engin eering could only be offered by transfer to School of Engineering; traditional professional degrees can be enhanced by integrating management of technology programs into core engineering curriculum; advantages of offering part-time courses for those in employment.Need to find a subtle balance between traditional didactic courses, presentations of leading edge research, workshops and meetings with practitioners, field studies and involvement in real projects through internships (including outside France); need for faculty to have close links with industry both domestically and abroad; important use of concurrent teaching modes. Hang, Ang, Wong, & Subramanian How can management of technology programs & curricula be designed to meet the needs of a small newly developed Asian country?Action learning as a foundation for curriculum design in technology intensive technology management programs. Qualitative analysis of transfer of MSc in Management of Technology from business school to a sc hool of engineering in Singapore Mustar How to develop a highly selective technology management course for students in a leading French engineering school, in an institutional and country environment traditionally resistant to the notion of entrepreneurship, that develops their entrepreneurial skills but which goes beyond an introductory course on how to start a business.How to combine the acquisition of knowledge and the development of skills. How to develop their entrepreneurial skills and their ability to take responsibilities. How to encourage imagination, creativity, involvement, and risk taking. Qualitative analysis of the case of innovation and entrepreneurship in Mines Paris-Tech, a leading French engineering school. lation, U. S. research universities established technology transfer offices to manage and protect their intellectual property.The Stevenson–Wydler Act, enacted in the same year as Bayh–Dole and then extended in 1986, required federal labs to adopt technology transfer as part of their mission and also authorized cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) between the labs and private organizations. The National Cooperative Research Act (NCRA) of 1984 and the National Cooperative Research and Production Act (NCRPA) of 1993, promoted collabo- 328 Academy of Management Learning & Education September TABLE 2 Key U. S.Legislation Promoting Government–University–Federal Lab–Industry Partnerships, Collaborative Research, Technology Transfer/Commercialization Legislation Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 Key Aspects of Legislation Transferred ownership of intellectual property from federal agencies (which sponsor most basic research) to universities; Spurred the growth of university technology transfer offices, which manage university patenting and licensing. Required federal labs to adopt technology transfer as a part of their mission; Authorized cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) be tween federal labs and private organizations.Created the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, which require each federal agency to allocate a percentage (now 2. 5%) of their research budget to small business research with commercial potential. NCRA and NCRPA actively encouraged the formation of research joint ventures and joint production ventures among U. S. firms. Institutions Affected by Legislation Universities; teaching hospitals; firms Stevenson–Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980; Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 Federal labs; firms Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982Universities; small firms; venture capital firms National Cooperative Research Act (NCRA) of 1984; National Cooperative Research and Production Act (NCRPA) of 1993 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988; America COMPETES Act (2007) Firms; universities The 1988 act established the Advanced Technology Program (A TP), a public–private research program. In 2007, the America COMPETES Act created the successor to ATP, the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). Firms; universities rative research by eliminating antitrust concerns associated with joint research even when these projects involved firms in the same industry.The NCRA created a registration process, later expanded by the National Cooperative Research and Production Act (NCRPA) of 1993, under which research joint ventures (RJVs) can disclose their research intentions to the Department of Justice. The most notable research joint venture established via the NCRA registration process was SEMATECH (SEmiconductor MAnufacturing TECHnology), a not-for-profit research consortium, which provided a pilot manufacturing facility, where member companies could improve their semiconductor manufacturing process technologies.Other legislation created two key publicly funded technology programs: (1) the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, which require each federal agency to allocate a percentage (now 2. 5%) of their research budgets to small businesses with commercial promise, and (2) the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), a public– private research program, which funds collaborative research on generic technologies. In 2007, the America COMPETEs Act created the successor to ATP, the Technology Innovation Program (TIP).Universities are actively involved in both programs, working closely with large firms on ATP/ TIP research projects, as well as with small companies on SBIR/STTR, sometimes founding these firms. As a result, many technology management curricula in the United States are now infused with a public policy dimension that was previously missing. Table 3 presents global evidence on key policy changes relating to the legislative and support environment for technology commercialization in five nations: France, Germany, Italy, Singapore, and the Un ited Kingdom.For example, according to Meyer (2008), Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Japan have adopted â€Å"Bayh–Dole like† legislation, emphasizing a â€Å"patent-centered† model of university and national laboratory technology transfer. The United Kingdom and Israel have always had a system of university-owned 2009 TABLE 3 Legislative and Support Environment for Technology Commercialization in France, Germany, Italy, Singapore, and the U. K. Germany 1999 Public researchers receive the right to be the owner of their IP.This is the opposite of the Bayh–Dole Act, but oftentimes the university makes a formal contract on an individual basis to give the IP rights to the university. 2002 Employer Invention Law: Invention belongs to the employer not to the professor. 2000–2006 Restructuring of various laws to make it easier to commercialize technology from universities, get part of the royalties as an academic, take equity in start-ups, etc. Italy Singapore U. K. No formal Bayh–Dole Act. In the case of UK public research organizations the IP is owned by the institution and the royalties associated with the IP are distributed between the relevant parties.The distribution of royalties is organized on an institutional basis. Milestone France I. University Ownership of Intellectual Property Arising From Federal (National) Research Grants (e. g. , Bayh–Dole Act in U. S. ) Not relevant as all IP belongs to universities/public research institutes following the â€Å"code intellectuelle de la propriete. † II. Other Key Changes 1999 Innovation Act gives the possibility to academics who are civil servants to participate as a partner or a manager in a new company and to take equity (previously illegal for civil servants).This Act encourages the creation of new start-up firms by students. 2002 Decree that regulates and increases the personal income an academic can receive from IP (50%). Phan, Siegel, and W right III. Financial Support 1999 11 (pre-) seed capital funds created to invest in innovative start-ups and take equity (investment in 150 spinoffs in 8 yrs). Creation of the annual National Competition for the creation of technologically innovative startups (grant from 45,000 to 450,000 Euros); 12,927 projects have been presented between 1999 and 2007: 1,879 have been funded.Creation of 29 incubators between 1999 and 2007; they hosted 1993 projects giving birth to 1,239 new firms. Between 1999 and 2007, these 3 schemes have benefited 1,760 new firms (taking into account that a company can benefit from different schemes). Around 50% are academic spin-offs. 2000 EXIST: public program that assists spin-offs through preseed capital and management support. 2002 EEF-Fund: Researchers can receive a scholarship to start a spin-off. 2002 22 TTOs established which take care of IP management. 999 National Research Commission created, which annually funds about 5-10 proposals for spin-offs, a mounting to 30,000 Euro, on average. 2005 Quantica Fund. First interuniversity seed capital fund (a form of public–private partnership) is created. 2005 Italian University technology transfer offices have to join together in groups of four and bid for money (100,000 Euro/university) to sponsor their day-today operations. 1963 Forms tripartite macroeconomic structure of industry, labor, and government as basis for funding innovation and economic development. 001–2008 National initiative to focus on microelectronics, biotechnology, nanotechnology, materials science, healthcare and life sciences as part of national innovation initiative. The right to commercialize IP are assigned to the faculty. 2001 Economic Development Board charged with the implementation of the 5-Year Science and Technology Plan which includes initiatives to target key technology sectors, attract foreign investment and human capital, and accelerate technological entrepreneurship and technology commerc ialization.Agency for Science, Technology and Research or A*STAR) created to fund and create infrastructure of industry– university joint research efforts in strategic technology sectors. 2005 The government’s funding plan is to increase R&D expenditure to 3% of GDP by 2010, from the 2004 R&D expenditure of $2. 5 billion US (about 2. 25% of GDP). 2007 Public sector R&D budgets more than doubled to $13. 55 US billion from 2005, comprised of $5 billion US for the National Research Foundation (NRF), $5. 4 billion US for the Public Research Institutes housed in the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR). 1. 05 billion US for academic (universitybased) research. $2. 1 billion US for the Economic Development Board (EDB) to promote private sector R&D. 1970 onward Various schemes to promote collaborative projects between universities and industry, including Knowledge Transfer Networks. 1998–2004 Higher education reaches out to business and the community to provide funding to establish corporate liaison offices and collaborative projects. 1998 University Challenge Funds (UCFs): Universities were granted funds to support spin-off and limited incubation support. 001 onward HEIF (Higher Education Innovation Fund) provides permanent flow of funding to support & develop universities’ capacity to act as drivers of growth in the knowledge economy (various rounds up to 2008). (table continues) 329 330 TABLE 3 Continued Germany Italy Singapore UK Milestone France In 2005, six â€Å"Maisons de l’entrepreneuriat† in different universities have been created. They aim at facilitating the promotion of the entrepreneurial spirit and mind-set and â€Å"sensitization† to the new business start-up or new activities.Academy of Management Learning & Education Science Enterprise Challenge funding (1991/2001), to encourage culture open to entrepreneurship required for successful knowledge transfer from science base. Teaching ent repreneurship to support the commercialization of science and technology to produce graduates and postgraduates better able to engage in enterprise. Establish a network of UK universities specializing in teaching and practice of commercialization and entrepreneurialism in science and technology. 005 Medici Fellowship Scheme, pilot providing 50 fellowships over 2 years focusing on commercialization of biomedical research; fellows required to have significant prior research; local training in host institution in finance, marketing, IP, & business strategy; fellows encouraged to develop links with practitioners; postpilot further funding obtained to extend remit to include engineering researchers from 2007–2009; analogous schemes subsequently created by Research Councils and Regional Development Agencies and from 2007–2009 mainly focused in life sciences.Regional Development Agencies providing broad spectrum of assistance to develop more productive links between universit ies and industry. 2007–2011 Technology Strategy Board strategic plan envisages investing ? 1 billion of public funds plus matched funds from industry over 2008-2011, in doubling number of innovation platforms, a strategic review of Knowledge Transfer Networks, doubling number of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, developing strategy to rapidly commercialize new and emerging technologies, piloting a new Small Business Research Initiative.September Information sources: Clarysse et al. (2007); Mustar & Wright (2009); and Koh & Phan (In Press). 2009 Phan, Siegel, and Wright 331 intellectual property. An increase in funding for technological entrepreneurship in many countries (see Table 3) has also stimulated greater interaction among firms, universities, and national labs, as well as the rise of intellectual property management curricula and courses at these institutions (for detailed comparison of France and the U. K. , see Mustar & Wright, 2009).EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF THESE TRENDS The end result of these global trends is an increased emphasis on collaborative research, commercialization of intellectual property, entrepreneurship, venture capital, and research centers dedicated to emerging technologies, such as Organic LEDs, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, MEMS, and so on. Such trends have brought new issues and perspectives, propelling the role of education to the forefront of discourse (e. g. , the recent AMLE special issue on entrepreneurship education).Conventional technology management and management of innovation curricula have focused largely on understanding the technology and innovation strategies of multinational firms (Nambisan & Willemon, 2003). There has been, until recently, less emphasis on start-up and entrepreneurial technology-based firms. The differences can be significant. For example, in the traditional curriculum, the role of teamwork, especially linking interdisciplinary teams of agents (scientists, technology ma nagers, and entrepreneurs) and institutions (firms, universities, government agencies) have not been stressed.That is, the individual and institutional levels of analyses have been ignored, such that technology management education curricula have been confined to how organizations respond to technological challenges. The developments in technology management education considered in this special issue can be seen as a response to the challenges leveled at business schools to be relevant to the practice of management (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002, 2004; Starkey, Hatchuel, & Tempest, 2004).At the same time, such programs that reside in business schools, when detached from the engineering and science faculties of their universities, run the risk of treating the technology component as a special case of general management. Our review of the literature and the lessons learned from this special issue suggest that a fully matured technology management program should treat technology with a capital â€Å"T† rather than the small one it has been to date. To accomplish this design goal, business schools eed to appoint program directors with strong boundary-spanning skills that can link up with technology-based units on and off campus by colocating or partnering with such institutions. We note that the challenge of integration is not easily solved. Over the years, business schools in the United States and United Kingdom have chosen to remain independent from the rest of their universities. This was partially enabled by the largesse of endowments in the 1980s and 1990s pouring in from private foundations and industrialists seeking to establish their names in perpetuity.Clarysse, Mosey, and Lambrecht (this issue) hypothesize that this is not a wise strategy for business schools administering technology management curricula. The authors conclude that business schools should expand their educational mission to include the education of engineering and science professors and res earchers, and the training of postgraduate science and engineering students, since these individuals are more likely to choose an industry or technology-specific master’s degree, instead of a traditional MBA.More generally, business schools need to have a stronger connection to schools of engineering and the sciences, and other technology-orientated organizations in the areas of medicine, public health, and pharmacy, as well as science-based business incubators and science parks. While acknowledging Clarysse et al. ’s points, we are concerned that each of these institutions has different paradigms, norms, standards, and values, as well as diverse languages and codes. Thus, it may be necessary to develop a shared syntax of boundary objects that include repositories, standardized forms, objects and models (Carlile, 2002).These communication devices enable individuals in business schools and technologybased schools to learn about their differences and dependencies, as wel l as jointly to evolve their knowledge bases about how things work â€Å"on the other side. † Hence, the recruitment and development of boundary spanners (such as program managers, center directors, or interdisciplinary faculty members) who can communicate across schools are important to facilitate such integration (see e. . , the Medici Scheme, Table 3). Another concern regarding the optimal design of technology management curricula arises in relation to the overall configuration of business schools. Ambos, Makela, Birkinshaw, and D’Este (2008) have argued that for universities to be effective at technology commercialization there is a need for ambidexterity in the organizational structures of these traditional research and teaching institutions.Similarly, with respect to technology 332 Academy of Management Learning & Education September management education, business schools must make their organizations more porous, for example, through the hiring and promotion of faculty with science and engineering degrees. Such ambidexterity configurations will enable business schools to more tightly bind the traditional business disciplines to science and engineering disciplines. The papers in this pecial issue challenge the proposition of Suddaby and Greenwood (2001), who asserted that business schools can sustain demand for new managerial knowledge through the education and accreditation of a continuing stream of management students. While it is true that there has been substantial growth in demand for courses in entrepreneurship and innovation in MBA and undergraduate programs, the ability of business schools to deliver these programs beyond an introductory level is open to debate, especially when faculty in such schools traditionally lack exposure to the hard sciences and technology disciplines.A third concern in the design of technology management curricula raised herein is the notion of avoiding polar extremes in content coverage, which are emphasiz ing theoretically rigorous, but highly abstract research or stressing practical content based on â€Å"war stories† and conventional wisdom. Placing too much emphasis on practical experience may have negative consequences since the mental models that such pedagogies create can quickly become obsolete, particularly in light of the fast evolving technologies the curricula are supposed to address (Locke & Schone, 2004).In ? other words, practice-oriented technology management curricula may inspire students to become more entrepreneurially oriented, but without the concomitant development of critical thinking skills, such as the ability to assess risks and recognize the inevitable downsides of entrepreneurial activity. Technology management curricula that are light on practice, however, can produce students who may find the challenge of boundary spanning, a key skill for successful technology managers, too great to scale.Van Burg, Romme, Gilsing, and Reymenk (2008) have outlined a design science-based model for the development of academic spin-offs that is grounded in both theory and practice. As noted by Barr, Baker, Markham, and Kingon (this issue), new developments in technology management education stress the importance of active involvement (experiential learning) models that are authentic and real. Many technology management curricula mimic those of entrepreneurship, in that they include a ealthy dose of business plan writing, ostensibly as products of courses on commercialization and opportunity search. There is considerable debate over the usefulness of business plans in practice, even though venture capitalists and banks demand them. Indeed, Barr, Baker, Markham, and Kingon (this issue) challenge the effectiveness of teaching the preparation of a business plan. They suggest that it is preferable to deemphasize the writing of a plan because it tends to restrict creativity and the search for more appropriate solutions.Yet, as a pedagogical tool, we t hink that business plans, when used appropriately, can be a useful way to garner a student’s attention on a comprehensive set of issues that should be considered when commercializing an invention. A shift is taking place from traditional technology management curricula toward more entrepreneurially based courses that require interdisciplinary skills. As part of this development, there is a need for interdisciplinary team-learning activities to be a central part of curriculum development in technology management education.Team composition needs to be addressed carefully to enable participants to gain full benefits. Thursby, Thursby, and Fuller (this issue) present an interesting example of teams of law, business, science, and engineering students converging to commercialize innovations developed at Emory University and the Georgia Institute of Technology. Developments in technology management education also pose major faculty recruitment challenges. Many business school facult y members do teaching, research, and service (including consulting) that is focused on large corporations.Traditional business school academics typically lack the appropriate context-specific business creation skills that are increasingly demanded as central to technology management education (Wright, Piva, Mosey, & Lockett, 2008). As noted in Barr, Baker, Markham, and Kingon (this issue), the recruitment of adjunct faculty members should be focused on those who can serve as mentors to students. There is also a need to consider recruitment and training of faculty who can act as boundary spanners.The time-consuming nature of developing interdisciplinary curricula raises a concern about possible conflicts with the promotion-and-tenure process, which also needs to be addressed in recruitment and retention. AGENDY FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION To build on the findings of this special issue, we identify a number of areas for further research. 2009 Phan, Siegel, and Wright 333 These are summarized in Table 4, where we identify a series of research questions relating to institutional issues, the interaction between education and practice, the advancement of business schools, and evaluation.Universities typically have well-established conventions and practices concerning the management of their activities. The traditional academic culture of the university (the classic â€Å"ivory tower†) embodies a system of values that opposes the commercialization of research through company creation. When university administration is decentralized, with no mechanism for integration, links between business schools and technologyoriented units of universities may be weak or in- formal.This suggests a need for the development and implementation of clear and well-defined strategies, processes, and policies regarding new venture formation and approaches to technology management education that incorporate entrepreneurial activities. Institutional frictions and thei r impact upon intraorganization knowledge transfer are wellknown (Szulanski, 1996). These frictions in the interactions between different elements of the university may frustrate the development of interdisciplinary technology management curricula.Transferring personnel across organizational boundaries has been identified as an important mechanism to effect knowledge transfer (Inkpen & Tsang, TABLE 4 Research Agenda Institutional Issues How do incentive systems for faculty encourage the time-intensive development of effective technology management courses? What institutional challenges constrain the cross-disciplinary development of technology management education? What are resource implications for universities attempting to develop interdisciplinary technology management education?Interaction Between Education and Practice How can technology management education processes be transferred to promote the creation and development of spin-offs? How can universities develop integration processes among technology management education and technology transfer offices, incubators, and science parks? How can business schools enhance (effective) engagement with leading-edge technological entrepreneurs? Advancement of Business Schools How can the necessary specific skills now required for technology management education be developed within business schools?Do business schools have the requisite career structures for faculty involved in technology management education? (e. g. , adjunct, nontenure track faculty). What is the role of business school faculty in contributing to the development of technology management education? Evaluation Issues How effective are different developments in technology management education? Is it possible to have a valid control group in evaluation of technology management education? From a corporate perspective (since many students are sponsored by companies), how effective are technology management programs?What are the most appropriate metho ds for evaluating the effectiveness of technology management education? What decision making processes are most effective in promoting interdisciplinary teaching and research, and integration in technology management education (top-down vs. bottom-up)? Does development of technology management education represent a need to reevaluate the whole position of business schools within universities, or is there a need for ambidexterity? What are the roles of different competitors within the segments of the broad technology management space?What challenges arise in addressing â€Å"language barriers† between business school and technology/ engineering faculty and how can they be overcome? What is the best way to train technology managers who must engage in boundary spanning among industry, the entrepreneurial community, academia, and government? What challenges arise in integrating research with new developments in technology management education? Is it possible to build evaluation i nto the design of technology management education programs, so we can identify â€Å"best practices† and benchmark comparable programs? 34 Academy of Management Learning & Education September 2005). Universities may need to consider the facilitation of exchanges of staff between schools or the development of faculty with boundary-spanning skills. Academics may identify more closely with their discipline than with the business school or university and may seek to marginalize â€Å"tribes† from â€Å"outside disciplines† (Becher & Trowler, 2001). This concern is especially salient if the objective is to integrate research with new developments in technology management education.Differences in language and goals between business schools and science- and technology-based departments exacerbate these problems. Business schools may also lack credibility with conventional, â€Å"pure† scientists, who perceive them as professional schools with little research tra dition. This may be a major issue in universities with strong science departments and weak business schools (Wright et al. , 2008). However, even this effect is likely to vary between disciplines, as some departments, for example, engineering and medicine, may be closer in the sense of being professional schools than the pure science departments.It may also be important to focus on the role of technology managers within the university. Siegel, Waldman, and Link (2003) found that the key impediment to effective university technology transfer tended to be organizational in nature. In a subsequent field study (Siegel, Waldman, Atwater, & Link, 2004), the authors found there are deficiencies in the technology transfer office and other areas of the university involved in technology commercialization with respect to marketing skills and entrepreneurial experience.This finding has been confirmed with more systematic data by Markman, Phan, Balkin, and Gianodis (2004), who explained this res ult by reporting that universities were not actively recruiting individuals with such skills and experience. Instead, representative institutions appear to be focusing on expertise in patent law and licensing or technical expertise. To develop effective curricula, the expertise that business school faculty need to interact with science and technology departments may be discipline specific.Yet the background of business school faculty typically makes it difficult for them to convey sufficiently context-specific material for different groups of technologists. To this end, Siegel and Phan (2005) suggest the creation of formal training programs for university personnel on the issue of technology management. Thursby, Thursby, and Fuller (this issue) report that an integrated graduate program on technological entrepreneurship has a positive impact on student perceptions of the multidisciplinary capabil- ties needed to operate in a technologically oriented business environment. Taking a pa ge from Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham (2007), who drew on the theory of planned behavior to demonstrate that entrepreneurship programs raised risktaking attitudes and inspired entrepreneurial intention among students, we suggest that technology management curricula can similarly inspire students to think creatively about how they can convert science to commercial ventures by immersing them in the experience of technology and opportunity evaluation early on in the program.Authors of evaluation studies need to find ways of incorporating the measurement of postprogram outcomes, such as new venturing and career trajectories, through more longitudinal studies. More specifically, it would be extremely useful to build evaluation into the design of such programs, so that we can identify â€Å"best practices† and benchmark comparable programs as we do for other types of programs. A critical methodological issue in evaluation concerns whether it is possible to have a viable contro l group for such a study. The papers in this special issue represent a number of different institutional contexts worldwide.A final question one can ask, after reading these papers, is whether there are developments that suggest a convergence in program design towards a universal model, or are we likely to experience a wide variation due to adaptations to the local contexts? Locke and Schone (2004) highlight ? important differences in the interaction between business schools and industry in Europe compared to those in the United States. They suggest that the relations between business school faculty and other scientists have traditionally been stronger in the United States than in the United Kingdom and France.Further, subjects taught in business schools in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States tend to be close to praxis, and professors have usually had practical experience. To contrast, in Germany management education has always been strongly oriented toward science, wi th academics having little business experience/ contact with industry; this pattern appears to have persisted despite pressure for convergence to an Anglo-Saxon business school model (Muller-Camen & Salzgeber, 2005).Mustar (this issue) and Verzat, Byrne, and Fayolle (this issue) illustrate the challenges of introducing entrepreneurial elements to the traditional approach to technology and engineering training in France. Hang, Ang, Wong, and Subramanian (this issue) argue that there was a need to design a program to meet the needs of a small newly developed Asian country. In sum, while the elements of technology man- 2009 Phan, Siegel, and Wright 335 agement curricula appear to be very similar, in part driven by the institutional hegemony of U. S. ased models, there is some indication of local adaptation in pedagogy, delivery mechanisms, and sequencing of content, based on government initiatives, types of corporations that employ the local graduates of such programs, and the capabili ties of the universities delivering them. REFERENCES Ambos, T. , Makela, K. , Birkinshaw, J. , & D’Este, P. 2008. When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 1424 –1447. Becher, T. , & Trowler, P. R. 2001. Academic tribes and territories.Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Carlile, R. P. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13: 442– 455. Inkpen, A. , & Tsang, E. 2005. Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 146 – 165. Koh, W. , & Phan, P. In Press. The National Innovation System in Singapore. In V. K. , Narayanan, & G. O’Connor, (Eds. ), Encyclopedia for Technology, Innovation and Management, Blackwell Press: U. K. Locke, R. , & Schone, K. 2004.The entrepreneurial shift: Ameri? canizat ion in European high-technology management education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Markman, G. , Phan, P. , Balkin, D. , & Gianiodis, P. 2004. Entrepreneurship from the ivory tower: Do incentive systems matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3– 4): 353–364. Markman, G. , Siegel, D. , & Wright, M. 2008. Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 1401–1423. Meyer, M. 2008. University patenting and IP management approaches in Europe. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex. Muller-Camen, M. , & Salzgeber, S. 2005.Changes in academic work and the chair regime: The case of German business administration academics. Organization Studies, 26(2): 271– 290. Mustar, P. , & Wright, M. 2009. Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer, forthcoming. Nambisan, S. , & Willemon, D. 2003. A global st udy of graduate management of technology programmes. Technovation, 23: 949 –962. Pfeffer, J. , & Fong, C. T. 2002. The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(1): 78 –95.Pfeffer, J. , & Fong, C. T. 2004. The business school â€Å"business†: Some lessons from the U. S. experience. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8): 1501–1520. Phan, P. , Siegel, D. S. , & Wright, M. 2005. Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2): 165–182. Siegel, D. S. , & Phan, P. 2005. Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: Implications for entrepreneurship education. In G. D. Libecap, (Ed. ), Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth, volume 16: University entrepreneurship and technology transfer: 1–38.JAI Press: Oxford, UK. Siegel, D. S. , Waldman, D. , & Link, A. N. 2003. Assess ing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1): 27– 48. Siegel, D. S. , Waldman, D. , Atwater, L. , & Link, A. N. 2004. Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1–2): 115–142. Siegel, D. S. , & Wright M. 2007. Intellectual property: The assessment.Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4): 529 –540. Souitaris V. , Zerbinati, S. , & Al-Laham, A. 2007. Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intentions of science and engineering students? The effects of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4): 566 –591. Starkey, K. , Hatchuel, A. , & Tempest, S. 2004. Rethinking the business school. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8) : 1521–1532. Suddaby, R. , & Greenwood, R. 2001. Colonizing knowledge: Commodification as a dynamic of jurisdictional expansion in professional service firms. Human Relations, 54: 933–953.Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 27– 43. Van Burg, E. , Romme, G. L. , Gilsing, V. A, & Reymenk, I. M. M. J. 2008. Creating university spin-offs: A science-based design perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25: 114 –128. Wright, M. , Piva, E. , Mosey, S. , & Lockett, A. 2009. Academic entrepreneurship and the role of business schools. Journal of Technology Transfer. Phillip Phan is professor and vice dean for Faculty and Research at The Johns Hopkins University Carey Business School.Between 2000 and 2007, he was the Warren H. Bruggeman ’46 and Pauline Urban Bruggeman Distinguished Professor of Management at Rensselaer Polytechnic Insti tute. Phil is associate editor for the Journal of Business Venturing, the Journal of Financial Stability, and the Journal of Technology Transfer. His most recent books are Theoretical Advances in Family Enterprise Research (InfoAge Press); Entrepreneurship and Economic Development in Emerging Regions (Edward Elgar); and Taking Back the Boardroom: Thriving as a Director in the 21st Century (Imperial College Press).Donald Siegel is dean of the School of Business and professor of management at the University at Albany, SUNY. Don is editor of the Journal of Technology Transfer, associate editor of 336 Academy of Management Learning & Education Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Productivity Analysis, and Academy of Management Learning & Education. His most recent books are Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Technological Change (Oxford University Press); and the Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (Oxford University Press).He has received grants or fellowships from the Slo an Foundation, National Science Foundation, NBER, American Statistical Association, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, and the U. S. Department of Labor. Professor Siegel is a member of the Advisory Committee to the Secretary of Commerce on â€Å"Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century Economy. † Mike Wright has been professor of financial studies at Nottingham University Business School since 1989 and director of the Centre for Management Buy-out Research since 1986.He has written over 25 books and more than 250 papers in academic and professional journals on management buy-outs, venture capital, habitual entrepreneurs, corporate governance, and related topics. He served two terms as an editor of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (1994 –1999) and is currently a consulting editor of Journal of Management Studies and an associate editor of Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. Mike is also program chair of the Academy of Management Entrepreneurship Divisi on. His latest books include Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe and Private Equity and Management Buyouts. September