# data[].attributes.headline
Understanding Economic Systems and Business

# data[].attributes.subject
Understanding Economic Systems and Business

# data[].attributes.body
This module helped me to better understand the fundamentals of how businesses and the economy function together. I have more diverse knowledge of all the factors affecting how a business runs and and the ideal ways to react to fluctuating conditions. I also feel more well versed in concepts relating to monopolies and general free market competition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How The Economic Machine Works by Ray Dalio

# data[].attributes.headline
 Making Ethical Decisions and Managing a Socially Responsible Business

# data[].attributes.subject
 Making Ethical Decisions and Managing a Socially Responsible Business

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drWWKqn8PuQ

In this module I learned about the different aspects of ethics as they relate to a business, and how treatment to all levels from all levels can cause a business to run poorly or even fail. I'm now aware of the back and forth between each business and the wide-scale global economy on a fundamental level, and how that can be played into by a business to keep things going well.

# data[].attributes.body
This module went deeper into the global marketplace. Globalized trade could lead to lower costs, less poverty, and more widely available goods and services. A business must contribute in both directions I got the sense that absolute global trade is a theoretical ideal, but not feasible in our current or expected world due to political and material issues. I enjoyed learning about what a business must consider on a global level to keep ahead of competition. I liked the thought experiment of globalized trade as a key to world peace and complete prosperity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
(New) what is globalization? 4 drivers of globalization |  International Business

# data[].attributes.body
I was very interested in this module concerning business ownership and management. I feel like I learned further fundamental ideas to build on throughout a business education. The differences and respective pros and cons to sole proprietorships, partnerships, and corporate ownership were very valuable to me in my current career point. I learned I would most prefer a sole proprietorship in the future, as the self management and self reliance attracts me.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sole Proprietorships | Advantages and Disadvantages

# data[].attributes.headline
Entrepreneurship: Starting & Managing Your Own Business

# data[].attributes.subject
Entrepreneurship: Starting & Managing Your Own Business

# data[].attributes.body
A big takeaway for me from this module was the huge role small businesses have in the economy and how important they really are. The statistics in the beginning of the chapter surprised me, showing how many businesses are run by only one or two people. I found it beneficial to learn about the specific challenges a small business owner might face and how to deal with them. This module really got me thinking about how I would perform as a sole entrepreneur in my chosen field.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Partnering with a metal fabrication shop that can provide and control all facets of sheet metal fabrication under one roof offers many benefits to OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) and other companies. When production requires multiple processes such as punching, laser cutting, welding, or painting and silkscreening, one-stop metal fabrication shops can centralize processes that would otherwise, if farmed out to multiple fabrication shops, add more time and money to production and production costs.

Choice one-stop shops like Quest-Tech optimize a wide array of fabrication processes for companies. By providing increased services for sheet metal fabrication under one roof, Quest-Tech eliminates waste from production. Here's how Quest-Tech one-stop metal fabrication services can benefit your company:

Cost-Savings

One-stop metal fabrication shops offer cost-efficiency in the overall production of parts and components. Material, production, and ancillary costs can fluctuate from shop to shop. These are particularly accentuated when OEMs contract with multiple partners to fabricate parts or components for them. At the top of the list is controlling costs. When using multiple partners, it may result in such variable pricing to inflate the cost of a product. However, underestimating that cost anywhere in the supply chain that results in cheaper material can undermine the quality of a product. This inherent risk of price variability when using multiple suppliers is eliminated with a one-stop metal fabrication shop. Dealing with a single supply source offers cost-saving opportunities for OEMs.

Reducing Lead Time

In manufacturing, longer lead times not only interrupt manufacturing processes but negatively affect sales. Juggling multiple suppliers is one of the surest ways that result in longer lead times for the production of a product. In fabrication, a one-stop shop that can fabricate a component and, say, also provide the punching, painting, or silk-screening necessary streamlines production under one roof. One-stop shops reduce lead times for manufacturers, which leads to improved productivity and increased output.

Cutting the Supply Chain

A supply chain is the flow of goods, services, and processes that transform raw materials into a final product. Well-managed, efficient, and economical supply chains contribute greatly to manufacturing productivity. In metal fabrication processes, each shop contracted by a manufacturer to complete a process compounds a supply chain, at the very least, by a factor of two, adding incalculable time lost in bringing a product to market. Multiple sheet metal fabrication processes accomplished under one roof cuts supply chains to a single source for easier management of supplies and increased efficiency.

Lowering Shipping Costs

Multiple fabrication stops in manufacturing parts and components can lead to higher shipping costs. If products and components are moved step-by-step, these additional shipping costs can affect a manufacturer's bottom line. Valuable time is also lost when products need to be shipped from one shop to another to complete a process. To save time and lower shipping costs, manufacturers can save by using the right one-stop fabrication shop. Metal fabrication shops with value-added services such as custom export crate design and shipping are a big plus for companies.

One-stop shops are more cost-effective than shops that specialize in only one, or perhaps limited areas of fabrication. Quest-Tech offers multi-metal fabrication processes with a precision that delivers high-quality parts and components on time. As a one-stop-shop, having the ability to control all aspects of the manufacturing process allows companies like Quest Tech to offer superior quality, competitive pricing, and shortened lead times to clients as well as an array of value-added services such as painting, silk screening, or readying custom export crate designs for shipping.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Metal Fabrication Shop Benefits & Cost Savings | Quest-Tech Precision

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Partnering with a metal fabrication shop that can provide and control all facets of sheet metal fabrication under one roof offers many benefits to OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) and other companies.

# data[].attributes.headline
Management and Leadership in Today's Organizations

# data[].attributes.subject
Management and Leadership in Today's Organizations

# data[].attributes.body
This chapter got me thinking about the roles of managers and how they can influence a business. I learned the responsibilities typically expected of someone in a managerial position, and different methods for tackling the related tasks. I learned about the importance of managers as strong and trustworthy leaders, as well as what type of people could be well suited to such roles. I have never had a managerial position in a large company or considered one day needing to employ a manager, so I found the breakdown very insightful.

# data[].attributes.headline
Managing Human Resources and Labor Relations

# data[].attributes.subject
Managing Human Resources and Labor Relations

# data[].attributes.body
This unit showed how important human resources roles are in a company and how they should keep people feeling and performing well on a personal and impersonal level. It seems like the main goal across the board is to keep everything running efficiently. The department should be working hard to keep interpersonal employee issues under control and unfostered. The concept of HR functions to oversee the whole employment process, from interviewing to onboarding to evaluation and issue assessment. The entire process must be monitored to ensure each employee is meeting the demands of the company.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recent evidence indicates that business managers have now adopted not one but two theories of participative leadership. For their subordinates, managers prefer a human relations approach, aimed at improving morale and reducing resistance to formal authority. For themselves, however, they prefer a human resources approach, whereby they want their superiors to recognize and make full use of their own currently wasted talents.

The proselyting efforts of the advocates of participative management appear to have paid off. The typical modern manager, on paper at least, broadly endorses participation and rejects traditional, autocratic concepts of leadership and control as no longer acceptable or, perhaps, no longer legitimate.

However, while participation has apparently been well merchandised and widely purchased, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about what has been sold and what has been bought. Managers do not appear to have accepted a single, logically consistent concept of participation. In fact, there is reason to believe that managers have adopted two different theories or models of participation-one for themselves and one for their subordinates.

These statements reflect both my analysis of the development of the theory of participative management and my interpretation of managers' attitudes toward these concepts.

My views are based in part on a number of recent surveys of managers' beliefs and opinions. The most recent of these studies, which I conducted, was begun with a group of 215 middle and upper level managers in West Coast companies, and has been continued with a sample of over 300 administrators from public agencies. ¹ This study was designed to clarify further certain aspects of managers' attitudes uncovered by earlier research under the direction of Dale Yoder of Stanford ² and Profs. Mason Haire, Edwin Ghiselli, and Lyman Porter of the University of California, Berkeley. ³

This series of studies involved the collection of questionnaire data on managers' opinions about people and on their attitudes toward various leadership policies and practices. Several thousand managers in all, both here and abroad, have participated.

This article is not intended to summarize all of the findings on managers' leadership attitudes available from these studies. Rather, my primary purpose is to construct a theoretical framework that may explain some of the principal dimensions of managers' views and some of the implications of their beliefs and opinions, drawing on the research simply to illustrate my views.

Participative Theories

While the suggestion that managers have accepted a two-sided approach to participation may be disturbing, it should not be too surprising. Management theorists have frequently failed to deal with participation in a thorough and consistent manner. Indeed, from an examination of their somewhat ambivalent treatment of this concept, it is possible to conclude that they have been selling two significantly different models of participative management.

One of the scholars' models, which we will designate the human relations model, closely resembles the concept of participation which managers appear to accept for use with their own subordinates.

The second, and not yet fully developed, theory, which I have labeled the human resources model, prescribes the sort of participative policies that managers would apparently like their superiors to follow.

I shall develop and examine these two models, compare them with managers' expressed beliefs, and consider some of the implications of managers' dual allegiance to them.

Both the human relations and the human resources models have three basic components:

1. A set of assumptions about people's values and capabilities.

2. Certain prescriptions as to the amount and kind of participative policies and practices that managers should follow, in keeping with their assumptions about people.

3. A set of expectations with respect to the effects of participation on subordinate morale and performance.

This third component contains the model's explanation of how and why participation works-that is, the purpose of participation and how it accomplishes this purpose. In outline form, the models may be summarized as shown in Exhibit I.

Exhibit I. Two models of participative leadership

Human Relations Model

This approach is not new. As early as the 1920's, business spokesmen began to challenge the classical autocratic philosophy of management. The employee was no longer pictured as merely an appendage to a machine, seeking only economic rewards from his work. Managers were instructed to consider him as a "whole man" rather than as merely a bundle of skills and aptitudes. ⁴ They were urged to create a "sense of satisfaction" among their subordinates by showing interest in the employees' personal success and welfare. As Bendix notes, the "failure to treat workers as human beings came to be regarded as the cause of low morale, poor craftsmanship, unresponsiveness, and confusion." ⁵

The key element in the human relations approach is its basic objective of making organizational members feel a useful and important part of the overall effort. This process is viewed as the means of accomplishing the ultimate goal of building a cooperative and compliant work force. Participation, in this model, is a lubricant which oils away resistance to formal authority. By discussing problems with his subordinates and acknowledging their individual needs and desires, the manager hopes to build a cohesive work team that is willing and anxious to tangle with organizational problems.

One further clue to the way in which participation is viewed in this approach is provided in Dubin's concept of "privilege pay." ⁶ The manager "buys" cooperation by letting his subordinates in on departmental information and allowing them to discuss and state their opinions on various departmental problems. He "pays a price" for allowing his subordinates the privilege of participating in certain decisions and exercising some self-direction. In return he hopes to obtain their cooperation in carrying out these and other decisions for the accomplishment of departmental objectives.

Implicit in this model is the idea that it might actually be easier and more efficient if the manager could merely make departmental decisions without bothering to involve his subordinates. However, as the advocates of this model point out, there are two parts to any decision-(1) the making of the decision and (2) the activities required to carry it out. In many instances, this model suggests, the manager might do better to "waste time" in discussing the problem with his subordinates, and perhaps even to accept suggestions that he believes may be less efficient, in order to get the decision carried out.

In sum, the human relations approach does not bring out the fact that participation may be useful for its own sake. The possibility that subordinates will, in fact, bring to light points which the manager may have overlooked, if considered at all, tends to be mentioned only in passing. This is treated as a potential side benefit which, while not normally expected, may occasionally occur. Instead, the manager is urged to adopt participative leadership policies as the least-cost method of obtaining cooperation and getting his decisions accepted.

In many ways the human relations model represents only a slight departure from traditional autocratic models of management. The method of achieving results is different, and employees are viewed in more humanistic terms, but the basic roles of the manager and his subordinates remain essentially the same. The ultimate goal sought in both the traditional and the human relations model is compliance with managerial authority.

Human Resources Model

This approach represents a dramatic departure from traditional concepts of management. Though not yet fully developed, it is emerging from the writings of McGregor, Likert, Haire, and others as a new and significant contribution to management thought. ⁷ The magnitude of its departure from previous models is illustrated first of all in its basic assumptions concerning people's values and abilities, which focus attention on all organization members as reservoirs of untapped resources. These resources include not only physical skills and energy, but also creative ability and the capacity for responsible, self-directed, self-controlled behavior. Given these assumptions about people, the manager's job cannot be viewed merely as one of giving direction and obtaining cooperation. Instead, his primary task becomes that of creating an environment in which the total resources of his department can be utilized.

The second point at which the human resources model differs dramatically from previous models is in its views on the purpose and goal of participation. In this model the manager does not share information, discuss departmental decisions, or encourage self-direction and self-control merely to improve subordinate satisfaction and morale. Rather, the purpose of these practices is to improve the decision making and total performance efficiency of the organization. The human resources model suggests that many decisions may actually be made more efficiently by those directly involved in and affected by the decisions.

Similarly, this model implies that control is often most efficiently exercised by those directly involved in the work in process, rather than by someone or some group removed from the actual point of operation. Moreover, the human resources model does not suggest that the manager allow participation only in routine decisions. Instead, it implies that the more important the decision, the greater is his obligation to encourage ideas and suggestions from his subordinates.

In the same vein, this model does not suggest that the manager allow his subordinates to exercise self-direction and self-control only when they are carrying out relatively unimportant assignments. In fact, it suggests that the area over which subordinates exercise self-direction and control should be continually broadened in keeping with their growing experience and ability.

The crucial point at which this model differs dramatically from other models is in its explanation of the causal relationship between satisfaction and performance. In the human relations approach improvement in subordinate satisfaction is viewed as an intervening variable which is the ultimate cause of improved performance. Diagrammatically, the causal relationship can be illustrated as in Exhibit II.

Exhibit II. Human relations model

In the human resources model the causal relationship between satisfaction and performance is viewed quite differently. Increased subordinate satisfaction is not pictured as the primary cause of improved performance; improvement results directly from creative contributions which subordinates make to departmental decision making, direction, and control. Subordinates' satisfation is viewed instead as a by-product of the process-the result of their having made significant contribution to organizational success. In diagram form the human resources model can be illustrated as in Exhibit III.

Exhibit III. Human resource model

The human resources model does not deny a relationship between participation and morale. It suggests that subordinates' satisfaction may well increase as they play more and more meaningful roles in decision making and control. Moreover, the model recognizes that improvements in morale may not only set the stage for expanded participation, but create an atmosphere which supports creative problem solving. Nevertheless, this model rejects as unsupported the concept that the improvement of morale is a necessary or sufficient cause of improved decision making and control. Those improvements come directly from the full utilization of the organization's resources.

Managers' Own Views

Which approach to participative management do managers actually follow? It was suggested earlier that managers' views appear to reflect both models. When they talk about the kind and amount of participation appropriate for their subordinates, they express concepts that appear to be similar to those in the human relations model. On the other hand, when they consider their own relationships with their superiors, their views seem to flow from the human resources model. A brief review of the relevant findings suggests some of the bases for this interpretation.

Participation for subordinates -When we look at managers' views on the use of participative policies and practices with the subordinates who report to them, two points seem clear:

Managers generally accept and endorse the use of participative concepts.

However, they frequently doubt their subordinates' capacity for self-direction and self-control, and their ability to contribute creatively to departmental decision making.

In the Stanford studies, an overwhelming majority of managers indicated their agreement with statements emphasizing the desirability of subordinate participation in decision making. ⁸ In the Berkeley studies, a majority of the managers in each of 11 countries, including the United States, indicated their agreement with such concepts as sharing information with subordinates and increasing subordinate influence and self-control. ⁹ Similarly, in my recent studies, managers overwhelmingly endorsed participative leadership policies.

On the other hand, while managers appear to have great faith in participative policies, they do not indicate such strong belief in their subordinates' capabilities. For example, the Berkeley group in their international study found that managers tended to have a "basic lack of confidence in others" and typically did not believe that capacity for leadership and initiative was widely distributed among subordinates. ¹⁰ In my own study, managers in every group to date have rated their subordinates and rank-and-file employees well below themselves, particularly on such important managerial traits as responsibility, judgment, and initiative.

But if managers do not expect creative, meaningful contributions from their subordinates, why do they advocate participative management? A reasonable answer seems to be that they advocate participative concepts as a means of improving subordinate morale and satisfaction. This interpretation gains support from my recent studies. Here, managers were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with statements predicting improved morale and satisfaction and statements predicting improved performance as the result of following various participative leadership policies. In connection with each of these policies, managers indicated consistently greater agreement with the predictions of improved morale than with the predictions of improved performance.

The fact that managers appear to have serious doubts about the values and capabilities of those reporting to them seems to rule out their acceptance of the human resources model for use with their subordinates. On the other hand, the fact that they do endorse participation and seem quite certain about its positive impact on morale suggests a close relationship between their views and those expressed in the human relations model. Moreover, the types of participative policies which managers most strongly advocate seem to support this interpretation.

In my research, managers indicate strongest agreement with policies that advocate sharing information and discussing objectives with subordinates. However, they tend to be somewhat less enamored with the policies which suggest increasing subordinate self-direction and self-control. This pattern of participation seems much closer to that of the human relations approach than to the pattern advocated in the human resources model.

Participation for themselves -When I examined managers' views toward their relationships with their own superiors, a much different pattern of responses became evident:

(1) Managers in my studies tend to see little, if any, difference between their own capabilities and those of their superiors. In fact, they tend to rate themselves equal to, if not higher than, their superiors on such traits as creativity, ingenuity, flexibility, and willingness to change.

(2) When asked to indicate at which levels in their organizations they feel each of the participative policies would be most appropriate, managers invariably feel most strongly that the full range of participative policies should be used by their own superiors.

More importantly, they also tend to be most certain that these participative policies will result in improved organizational performance at their own level.

Thus, when managers discuss the type of participative policies which their superiors should follow with managers at their own level, they appear to espouse the human resources model. They see themselves as reservoirs of creative resources. Moreover, the fact that they frequently view themselves as more flexible and willing to change than their superiors suggests that they feel their resources are frequently wasted. Correspondingly, they expect improvement in organizational performance to result from greater freedom for self-direction and self-control on their part.

Reasons Behind Views

If the evidence of the current survey does represent managers' attitudes toward participative leadership, one serious question immediately comes to mind. How can managers desire one type of authority and control relationship with their superiors and at the same time advocate another type with their subordinates? A general answer, of course, is that this pattern of attitudes is just human nature. We tend not only to think more highly of ourselves than we do of others, but also to want more than we are willing to give. There are, however, other logical, more specific explanations for managers' reluctance to accept the human resources model for use with their subordinates.

A second explanation for managers' failure to accept the human resources model for use with their subordinates is that they are simply reluctant to "buy" a theory that challenges concepts to which they are deeply and emotionally attached. There is no question that the human resources model does attack a number of traditional management concepts. Two of the bedrock concepts that are directly challenged deal with:

(1) the origins and applicability of management prerogatives, and

(2) the source and limits of control.

The human resources model recognizes no definable, immutable set of management prerogatives. It does not accept the classical division between those who think and command and those who obey and perform. Instead, it argues that the solution to any given problem may arise from a variety of sources, and that to think of management (or any other group) as sufficient in and of itself to make all decisions is misleading and wasteful.

This approach does not directly challenge the "legal" right of management to command. It suggests, however, that there is a higher "law of the situation" that thoughtful managers will usually observe, deferring to expertise wherever it may be found. In this model the manager's basic obligation is not to the "management team" but to the accomplishment of departmental and organizational objectives. The criterion of success, therefore, is not the extent to which orders are carried out but the results obtained.

Admitting that he may not have all the answers is as difficult for the manager as for any of the rest of us. He has been taught to hide his deficiencies, not to advertise them. Holding on to information, maintaining close control, and reserving the right to make all decisions are ways by which the manager can ensure his importance. Further, many organizations have reinforced this type of behavior either (a) by failing to emphasize the manager's obligation to develop and utilize his human resources or (b) by failing to reward him when he does make this effort.

In the area of control the human resources model challenges the traditional concept that control is a scarce resource. In traditional theory there is presumed to be a virtually fixed amount of control. This fixed amount can be distributed in a variety of ways, but control given to one group must eventually be taken away from another. Given this concept, the manager is reluctant to allow his subordinates any real degree of self-control-what he gives up to them, he loses himself. In fact, it is frequently this basic fear of losing control which limits the amount of participation that managers are willing to allow.

The human resources model does not accept this lump-of-control theory. Instead, it argues that the manager increases his total control over the accomplishment of departmental objectives by encouraging self-control on the part of his subordinates. Control is thus an additive and an expanding phenomenon. Where subordinates are concerned with accomplishing goals and exercising self-direction and self-control, their combined efforts will far outweigh the results of the exercise of any amount of control by the manager.

Moreover, the fact that subordinates desire to exercise greater self-control does not mean that they reject the manager's legitimate concern for goal accomplishment. Rather, there is evidence that they in fact seek a partnership that will allow them to play a larger role, yet also will allow for a corresponding increase in management's control activity. ¹¹

In all, the fact that managers are reluctant to adopt a model which forces them to rethink, and perhaps restructure, their perceptions of their own roles and functions is not surprising. It is also not surprising that some writers in this field have hesitated to advocate a model which challenges such deeply held concepts. The human relations approach is easy to "buy," since it does not challenge the manager's basic role or status. It is correspondingly easy to sell, since it promises much and actually demands little. The human resources model, on the other hand, promises much but also demands a great deal from the manager. It requires that he undertake the responsibility of utilizing all the resources available to him-his own and those of his subordinates. It does not suggest that it will make his job easier; it only acknowledges his obligation to do a much better job.

Logical Implications

The nature of the evidence to date does not warrant any firm or sweeping conclusions. Nevertheless, it does suggest enough support for the interpretations made here to make it worthwhile, and perhaps imperative, to draw some logical implications from the fact that managers seem to have adopted two apparently conflicting attitudes regarding participative management.

The first implication, and the easiest one to draw, is that, given managers' present attitudes, the human resources model has little chance of ever gaining real acceptance as a guide to managers' relationships with their subordinates. Managers at every level view themselves as capable of greater self-direction and self-control, but apparently do not attribute such abilities to their subordinates. As long as managers throughout the organizational hierarchy remain unaware that the kind of participation they want and believe they are capable of handling is also the kind their subordinates want and feel they deserve, there would seem to be little hope for the human resources approach being actually put into practice.

A second, and somewhat more complex, implication of managers' current views is that real participation will seldom be found in modern organizations. Participation, in the human relations model, is viewed as an "ought" rather than a "must." The manager is under no basic obligation to seek out and develop talent, or to encourage and allow participation; it is something which he "probably should do" but not something for which he is made to feel truly responsible. Viewing participation in this fashion, the manager often junks it when problems arise or pressure builds up from above-the very times when it might be expected to produce the greatest gains.

A third implication, closely related to the second, is that the benefits which the human resources approach predicts from participative management will not accrue as long as managers cling to the human relations view. From the human relations model, a manager may draw a rule for decision making which says that he should allow only as much participation, self-direction, and self-control as is required to obtain cooperation and reduce resistance to formal authority. In the area of job enlargement, for example, the manager following the human relations model would be tempted to enlarge his subordinates' jobs just enough to improve morale and satisfaction, with little real concern for making full use of their abilities. This limited approach borders on pseudoparticipation and may be interpreted by subordinates as just another manipulative technique.

A fourth and final implication can be drawn from managers' confused and conflicting attitudes toward participative management. Managers' attitudes, as suggested earlier, in part reflect the ambivalent and inconsistent treatment which scholars have given to participative leadership concepts, and are not likely to change until theorists firm up their own thinking.

Some Final Comments

It must be clear at this point that I feel that management scholars should focus their attention on developing and promoting the application of the human resources approach. While I cannot, at this stage, base my preference for the human resources model on solid empirical evidence, there is one strong argument for its potential usefulness. It is the fact that managers up and down the organizational hierarchy believe their superiors should follow this model.

Critics of the human resources approach have argued that (1) its costs outweigh its benefits because in its final form the human resources model prescribes management by committee at every level, which results in wasted effort and the inability to act in crisis situations; and (2) this approach is unsuitable for organizations or organizational groups whose members have neither the desire nor the ability to meet its challenge.

In answer to the first charge, this approach does imply a need for additional information flow to subordinates at all levels, and I admit that collecting and disseminating information increases costs.

However, information collected and used at lower levels may be less costly than information collected for use at upper levels that is subsequently ignored or misused. Further, and more important, the application of the human resources model does not require-in fact, would make unnecessary-committee-type sharing of routine departmental tasks.

This model would suggest that subordinates are generally willing to go along with their superiors' decisions on more or less routine matters, particularly when they are well informed and feel free to call important points to their bosses' attention. Moreover, this approach implies that many matters are to be delegated directly to one or more subordinates who, in most instances, will coordinate their own activities. At the same time, this model emphasizes that full and extended discussion by the whole department will be utilized where it can do the most good-on complex and important problems that demand the full talent and complete concern of the group. One could argue that under these circumstances crises should arise less often and consensus should be more quickly reached when they do arise.

Finally, there is a familiar ring to the critics' charge that many organization members are either unwilling or unable to contribute creatively, or to accept any real measure of responsibility. In fact, this charge brings us back once again to the heart of the conflict in managers' attitudes toward participation-their own view that subordinates are suited only for the human relations type of participation, while they themselves are well suited for the full range of participation suggested in the human resources model.

1. See Raymond E. Miles, "Conflicting Elements in Managerial Ideologies," Industrial Relations, October 1964, pp. 77-91. The subsequent research with public administrators is still being conducted, and reports have not yet been published.

3. See Mason Haire, Edwin Ghiselli, and Lyman W. Porter, "Cultural Patterns in the Role of the Manager," Industrial Relations, February 1963, pp. 95-117, for a report on the Berkeley studies.

4. See Reinhard Bendix, Work and Authority in Industry (New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1956), pp. 287-340.

5. Ibid., p. 294.

8. Yoder et al, "Managers' Theories of Management," op. cit.

9. Haire, Ghiselli, and Porter, op. cit.

10. Haire, Ghiselli, and Porter, op. cit.

11. See Clagget C. Smith and Arnold Tannenbaum, "Organizational Control Structure: A Comparative Analysis," Human Relations, November 1963. pp. 299-316

A version of this article appeared in the July 1965 issue of Harvard Business Review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent evidence indicates that business managers have now adopted not one but two theories of participative leadership. For their subordinates, managers prefer a human relations approach, aimed at improving morale and reducing resistance to formal authority. For themselves, however, they prefer a human resources approach, whereby they want their superiors to recognize and make full [...]

# data[].attributes.body
This unit taught me what must be considered from a corporate production aspect. The goal is always to produce as much as possible as cheaply as possible before the competition can. This must include things like well managed resources to streamline costs and production sites in the right place to meet or find demand or distribution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Creating Products and Pricing Strategies to Meet Customers' Needs 

# data[].attributes.subject
Creating Products and Pricing Strategies to Meet Customers' Needs 

# data[].attributes.body
This module granted more insight into concepts of good marketing and how to adapt marketing to harness demand. I evaluated ways a customer may be drawn to a business, whether through flashy or manipulative advertising, loyalty programs, or a sense of camaraderie. It’s just as important to be aware of the way a customer is drawn to a product, what comes into demand and why, and what is considered a fair price.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to price your art glass w/ Tanya Veit of AAE Glass

# data[].attributes.headline
Distributing and Promoting Products and Services

# data[].attributes.subject
Distributing and Promoting Products and Services

# data[].attributes.body
I learned the basics of the ins and outs of actually selling products on personal and larger scale levels. Promoting and advertising properly can be extremely valuable to bringing in demand for your products. Advertising products as the producer can be more personal and can be more welcoming to consumers. Fostering good relationships with every person in the process, from distributors to advertisers to customers, can ensure efficiency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The internet has opened up so many different avenues to sell your art and is now an essential tool for getting discovered, getting inspired, and getting sales.

All these avenues can quickly become overwhelming. Are you tweeting enough? Should you invest in product photography? Where should you display your portfolio?
It can be difficult to remember how artists sold work before the interwebs.
There's good news though. Traditional, hyper-local art marketing is still relevant. Not only relevant, but imperative if you not only want to sell your work, but create strong connections in your community.

Here are our favorite classic ways to show your art around town (plus real stories from a few artists who have used these methods successfully).

Your local art council is probably the first place you should look for contacts and opportunities. Most cities will have a local art council-a small group that will put on events, manage activities and even host competitions and grants.

The projects you'll find through your art council are varied. Some councils undertake community projects, while others put out feelers for more large-scale commissions.

Yes, it's a local scene and does depend on "who you know," but you're not competing with every artist out there, so there's a better chance of being recognized and funded.

>>Story: Ryder Henry Doubles His Sales Via Local Artist Council

Pittsburgh-based artist, Ryder Henry , joined two local organizations, the Greater Pittsburgh Arts Council and the Associated Artists of Pittsburgh (AAP). After joining AAP last year, Ryder has been able to double his sales locally.
Fun Fact: The other unique way Ryder markets his art locally is through his custom miniatures. He got the word out about this offering by making models of several notable Pittsburgh buildings and once people saw them they wanted models of their own homes. He created a number of pieces he donated but this has definitely translated into sales for him.

While the most renowned fairs might not be in your immediate area, keep a lookout for shows happening in your state. Attending local shows is also a great way to keep costs down, as you don't have to pay travel expenses. Most shows will charge a few hundred dollars for a booth, but you can always team up with another local artist to split the cost.

Going to art fairs requires a certain amount of extroversion that might feel a little scary to some artists. Only go if you love the idea of being on your feet all day and talking to others about your work. Fairs aren't just about the sales, but the culture of the fair.

>>Story: Kat Rosati Lands a Retail Deal Through Local Market

Source: @hellolovelyclothing

In January of this year, Kat Rosati started Hello Lovely Clothing Co , a handmade clothing and accessories business . At first, she started selling at local fairs and markets. She'd talk to other vendors and search Facebook to find even more fairs in her area. This eventually lead to her shirts being sold in a shop the next town over.

Rosati says she's testing the market scene, but it's the act of building community that's led to the most interesting opportunities. "The nice thing about the handmade market is that the other makers all seem to be supportive of each other," Rosati says. "Everyone understands that we all work hard. Everyone appreciates everyone else's hustle."

Partnering with local businesses is often one of the techniques most artists never think of. But remember, businesses (especially those who are growing and moving into a new office space) need art on their walls and murals in their lobbies and photos of their team.

Don't discount the idea of joining a local networking group, like BNI, that exchanges referrals. And because most artists don't think to schmooze with the suits, you'll likely be one of the few creative members. Make some business cards showcasing your work and thank us later :)

Partnering with your local charity is a great way to get your work in front of more eyeballs. While not a great money-maker (they are charities, of course), you get your work out there and get some good karma.

You could submit a piece for a fundraiser auction or volunteer during an event. If it's an art-focused charity you'll meet a lot of local artists who, in turn, could be a great source of inspiration and referrals.

In a nutshell, the more involved you get, the more opportunities come your way.

>>Story: Amy Ragsdale Combines Community Project With Local Business Marketing

In her hometown of Elkins Park, Ragsdale works with a nonprofit that's fixing up an historic old train station. On more than one occasion she's helped support the project by organizing a popup event. She invites artists to sell their work and restaurants to offer refreshments-all to support the project. The venue gets a percentage of the sale, the restaurant gets exposure and the artists get to sell their work and build a client base.

Ragsdale says she loves the old train station and wanted to do anything she could ("including pulling carpet stables out of the wooden floor with pliers") to help. "I could see that the success of the Elkins Station would only help the future of my business," she said.

Whether it's in support of a nonprofit or not, Ragsdale says, "Almost all businesses are willing to listen to and collaborate with client building ideas."

Ahh, the coffee shop. A classic location to display and sell your work.

The best way to get an "in" at a local coffee shop is simply to visit and take note of which shops hang art and what kind they tend to favor. Tailor your portfolio to each shop and call them (yes, on the phone) to ask who you should speak to about organizing a showing.

Most coffee shops will exhibit art for free and will rotate out the art each month. Some may have a "waiting list," and the only way to find out is to ask.

And remember, coffee shops aren't the only place to publicly display your work. Office lobbies, schools, libraries, banks and theatres often host mini exhibitions from local artists and are all brilliant ways to get your art in front of new people.

Building relationships with a local art gallery is obviously one of the best ways to get your art seen by other art lovers. These galleries usually have "regulars," and getting your foot in the door here is a great way to start building not only a following, but a network in your local art scene.

And because most local galleries are small, they're usually more willing to offer individual artists a private exhibition and advice on the local art market.

>>Story: Tellus Design Partners with SoCal Artists

"Artists can come use our office space as a work area, and subsequently display their pieces for purchase," says Fowler. "It's a fantastic win/win, as we often find one-of-a-kind pieces to decorate our client projects with."

Similar to local charities, the schools in your area will likely host their own fundraisers and art fairs, they also feature a lot of art! Many schools will receive separate government funding to create projects with their students.

The same goes for community churches, recreation centers and fire departments.

>>Story: Olga Alexander Exhibits at Local Schools

Yes, the street. While the laws on selling your work on the street can vary, it's definitely a creative and hyper-local way to get your work seen. Keep reading to hear how one artist took this technique to the extreme (with much success!).

>>Story: Hunt Ethridge Sets Up Shop on the Streets of Newark

Hunt Ethridge is a small local artist, furniture maker and salvager who makes unique pieces or refurbishes old things to add a new flavor. He's based in Jersey City where he usually just sells his stuff on Craigslist.

But he's also literally taken it to the streets-Newark Street, to be exact. It's a pedestrian street right in downtown. Ethridge loads up a chair, table, lamp, stool and a few other little pieces he's made and set up a mini living room on the street. He brings a book and a sign and just "chills out and reads".

When people approach, he tells them what he's doing and will show them his work. "People think it's really interesting," he says. "I've sold a few pieces like this and hope to continue doing it!"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The internet has opened up so many different avenues to sell your art and is now an essential tool for getting discovered, getting inspired, and getting sales. All these avenues can quickly become overwhelming. Are you tweeting enough? Should you invest in product photography? Where should you display your portfolio?

# data[].attributes.headline
Using Financial Information and Accounting 

# data[].attributes.subject
Using Financial Information and Accounting 

# data[].attributes.body
This module introduced me to the accounting aspects of business, and how to keep the finances balanced. I found this unit very interesting, being interested in working with the financial aspects of businesses I've been able to in the past. I appreciated the bigger picture it provided me with and the systems it introduced me to in order to make sure everything is correct instead of my past methods of hoping I was right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Accounting Basics For Small Business Owners

# data[].attributes.body
This unit made me really consider what I’d learned throughout the course and how to apply it to my career goals as well as my interpersonal relationships. This class gave me more insight into social aspects of business than I expected.