Pass the Admission Tests Graduate Management Admission Test GMAT Questions and answers with ValidTests

Although a substantial body of evidence Indicates that flexible and participative work arrangements make possible significant performance advantages over more traditional centralized and hierarchical structures, the proportion of businesses that have so transformed themselves remains quite small. Why, then, do firms that purport to be rationally acting organizations appear to resist the very methods that would best equip them to achieve their stated goals?

One line of analysis points toward the phenomenon of structural inertia, suggesting that organizations are "imprinted" with the conditions under which they were born, tending thereafter to ding to long-established routines, production methods, and identities. A second approach fastens on resistance to change among middle managers, who are said to view new work practices as threats to their traditional status and authority. A third approach suggests that because firms have tended to adopt innovations singly, rather than in clusters, the firms often fail to achieve far-reaching organization change.

Although each of these perspectives contains a partial truth, each one is limited. Analysis using the concept of structural inertia tends to emphasize the conservative aspects of organizational culture and to neglect inside factors as sources of change. While theories of managerial resistance have stressed the importance of within-firm political processes, they often endow upper levels of management with an omniscience and openness to egalitarian practices that upper-level managers do not possess. Finally, the last approach often views new practices as if they exist in a vacuum—as if they are unmediated by the manner in which they are introduced.

Managerial work is undergoing enormous and rapid change. With little precedent to guide them, managers are coping with the fading away of hierarchy and the blurring of clear distinctions of title, task, department, even corporation. Traditional sources of power are being eroded as levels of complexity and interdependence increase.

Competitive pressures from recent business downturns are forcing corporations to adopt flexible strategies and structures, including reductions In management staff and increased use of performance-based (rather than longevity-based) rewards. In a more profound change, in a growing number of companies horizontal ties between peers are replacing vertical ties as channels of activity and communication. Companies are asking departmental staff to play a more strategic role, with greater cross-departmental collaboration. Some organizations are forming strategic alliances with customers and outside suppliers that bring external relationships inside, where they can influence company policy.

Fundamentally, the new managerial work involves new ways of obtaining and using power. Position, title, and authority are no longer adequate tools when managers have to work cooperatively with other departments and even other companies. The ability of managers to get things done depends more on the number of networks in which they are included than on their rank in a hierarchy. In the past, formal structures and the emphasis on rank were more limiting. For example, access to information and the ability to get informal backing were often confined to the few officially sanctioned contact points between departments or between the company and Its suppliers or customers. Today, official barriers between departments and between companies are disappearing while Informal networks grow in importance. The new corporation has many more channels for action, strategic pathways that ignore the chain of command.

These strategic pathways also serve to diffuse power. As the number of ways to combine resources Increases, the ability to command diminishes. Alternative paths of communication and resource access erode the authority of those in the nominal chain of command. In other words, greater speed and flexibility undermine hierarchy. As more and more of the strategic action takes place in these informal networks, the Jobs that focus inward on particular departments decline In power.

The following is based on an article published in 2012.

Most linguists believe proto-Indo-European, the ancestor of all Indo-European

languages, was the language of chariot-driving pastoralists who spread through

Eurasia from steppes north of the Black Sea about 4,000 years ago. But a

competing theory is that proto-Indo-European was spoken by farmers in Anatolia

(Asia Minor) about 9,000 years ago, and spread from there along with agriculture.

To evaluate these hypotheses, researchers statistically compared IndoEuropean languages' vocabularies. Languages with more similar vocabularies are

probably more closely related, sharing more recent common ancestors.

Combining the vocabulary statistics with the known dates when certain languages

split, and with their known geographical ranges, a computer calculated the most

likely relationships among all Indo-European languages and concluded that protoIndo-European probably originated in Anatolia 9,000 years ago.

Disputing this conclusion, skeptics argue that most Indo-European languages

are similar in their words pertaining to chariots and wagons, suggesting protoIndo-European split into daughter languages only after chariots and wagons were

invented. No archaeological evidence indicates that chariots and wagons existed

before 5,500 years ago. Furthermore, proto-Indo-European had words for "horse"

and "bee" and lent many words to proto-Uralic, the mother language of Finnish

and Hungarian. The steppes north of the Black Sea were far closer than Anatolia

to areas where proto-Uralic was spoken, and had more abundant wild horses and

bees.