Unit 1, Lesson 1.2, Exercise B 1.

Part 1

Welcome to the Management School. A key issue, central to all management thinking, is the concept of leadership.
And today I want to start you off by exploring this idea of what a leader is.

Does anyone here believe that leadership and management are the same thing? I'm afraid this isn't true: a manager
is not always necessarily a leader... and being a good leader may not necessarily be part of a manager's role.

Another thing that is often discussed is the long- running debate over whether leaders are naturally charismatic
people or whether people can be trained to become good leaders. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to this
'nature versus nurture' controversy, though it might be that both arguments are true.

So what makes a good leader? Good leaders are able to keep their eye on overall goals at all times. Rather than get
caught up in the detail, they can see the bigger picture. They are also usually experts in a field and generally quite
knowledgeable. Look at Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft. He began with incredible skills in software and
computing. Good leaders can also see change and respond to it. They have natural creativity and a passion for ideas
and solutions. Leaders also have good self-image. Their confidence helps give them charisma.

So, before we look more deeply at leadership, I am firstly going to outline for you a range of qualities or
characteristics that leaders commonly have, and I shall talk for a while about leadership styles. OK, let's begin.

Unit 1, Lesson 1.2, Exercise C 1.2

Part 2

Many words have an intrinsic or basic meaning. We use the words in different situations and they have different
surface meanings, but the basic meaning remains the same. Let me give you an example. We use the word goal in
everyday English. It is something a footballer scores when he a ball into the back of a net. But we also use the word
goal in management. It is a noun to mean something we want to achieve. Is there any connection between these
two words? Yes, there is. For a footballer, putting balls into the net is what he wants to achieve. In management
speak, it is something exact that we need to achieve.

Somehow, when we are learning our first language, we get a feeling for the basic meaning of words, which helps us
to understand the same word in a new context. When we are learning another language, it is very important to find
the basic meaning of a word because the direct translation in one context may not be the correct translation in
another. For example, can you use the word in your language for hand in the context of a factory hand, meaning
someone who works with his or her hands in a factory? Possibly not.

Unit 1, Lesson 1.2, Exercise D 1.3

Part 3

So let me talk a little bit about leadership styles. There are a number of well-known styles.

The first is autocratic leadership. Have you ever come across a manager who sets his... or her.... own goals, tells
people what to do to achieve them, and demands that people obey? In this case, those he or she... leads may
become either dissatisfied or perhaps too dependent on him or her. In some cases, like the military, this kind of
leadership is useful, but generally in business it is not.

Similar to autocratic leadership is paternalistic leadership. Paternalistic leaders still make all the decisions and expect
workers to obey them. But while autocratic leaders don't care much about what their workers think and feel,
paternalistic leaders are more interested in their welfare.
The third is democratic leadership, which can either be consultative-where, for example, a communications
campaign leader may consult with her staff on ways forward before making strategy decisions or it may be
persuasive, where the leader decides first and then persuades her staff to follow the decision. While democratic
leadership requires communication skills and takes more time than autocratic leadership, most people think it is
more effective. It lets more people participate, letting everyone feel they belong and can take ownership of what
they do, thereby motivating them and making them more committed. Besides, when staff have high levels of
education, it is a good idea to respect people's ideas and draw on their knowledge and experience.

The fourth style of leadership is called laissez- faire. It's spelt I-a-s-se-z and faire... It's French and it means, roughly,
leave to do or happen Laissez-faire leaders let their employees work freely and without much control at all. Do you
think this is an effective style? I can see some of you think not. Well, there are certain industries, like new media and
other creative industries, which are quite informal and enjoy the freedom and relaxed atmosphere of this style. The
danger is low productivity, but it can make for a very innovative workplace.

Next, I'm going to answer the question: What is the basic or intrinsic meaning of leadership?

Unit 1, Lesson 1.2, Exercise E 1.4

Part 4

There are many great thinkers who have attempted to describe what leadership intrinsically is. Hersey and
Blanchard, for example, have an excellent model that illustrates the difference between task behaviour and
relationship behaviour. Task behaviour is about organizing what people need to do. Relationship behaviour is about
the personal support they need. With the right balance, they say, a good leader can choose between some of the
styles mentioned earlier in the lecture, as well as some others like delegating (or giving power to others), for
example... or participation, as we talked about before... or what they call 'selling' leadership (where they persuade
others about a concept)... or what they call 'telling' leadership (where workers are less mature and need to be clearly
instructed).

As you know, the first decade of the 21 century has seen great changes. And so leadership styles need to adapt. One
clear trend is a move away from the old hierarchy and ideas of status in a company. Companies are flatter, with
fewer layers of management. Most companies now embrace a more team-based or project approach. A good team-
based project leader these days can bring together the right mix of individuals to get things done. They can motivate
staff and inspire them to see the same corporate objectives as they do and get their tasks done. Such a leader is
good at standing back and evaluating the team and the actions it implements.

With this new level of flexibility and empowerment of people, leaders can tackle the challenges of the future: new
technologies, international recruitment in a globalized world and cross-border mergers and acquisitions and the
effects of these.

Unit 3, Lesson 3.2, Exercise B 1.12

Part 1

OK. Is everyone here? Right, let's get started. Today, I'm going to talk about something that's quite basic to
management... It's the way businesses are formally organized. We'll look at how they are put together and some
popular models that work for different types of company. Of course, in broad terms, organizations may be divided
into production, finance, marketing and human resource management. Or they could be organized according to
products or services (for example, you might have a food products division that is quite separate from a soap
products division). Organizations can also be organized geographically... you may manage the South-East Asian
operation or the Middle Eastern one. Or there may be a mixture of these kinds of organization.
We can illustrate the formal organization of a company using an organizational chart, which shows diagrammatically
exactly how the employees relate to one another. It is useful for communication and for seeing where responsibility
lies, because it shows lines of command - In other words, who reports to whom - and each manager's span of
control. By that mean the number of people below the manager in the chart. In this lecture, we shall examine four
possible models of business that we find in many organizations: they are the independence structure, the
entrepreneurial structure, the bureaucracy and the matrix.

Unit 3, Lesson 3.2, Exercise C 1.13

Part 2

Now, I will explain each of these four models in a bit, but before I do so, I need to tell you why I call them formal
structures.

In fact, Krackhardt and Hanson in 1993 demonstrated that there are also informal structures in organizations. They
showed that in the financial industry, for instance, there are strong networks of people who trust each other enough
to look for and share information and advice amongst themselves. These networks were not related to the lines of
command in the organizational charts. They were informal.

Still, the models are important, and the different models suit different business activities. Some of the models are
more centralized. This means individuals have less authority because all the authority lies in one central
headquarters. Other businesses may suit more decentralized authority, where authority is delegated to individuals,
or to different business units, rather than being in a single place.

There are advantages and disadvantages of both these models. Centralized authority can be less complicated if
management is strong and decisions are clear. It lets managers keep more control and be fair. In addition,
procedures can be standardized. On the other hand, decentralized authority has great advantages as well. It
motivates and empowers workers by giving them decision-making power. And it allows businesses to be more
flexible. It also recognizes the fact that local managers may have better local knowledge. It can prepare such
individuals for greater management roles in the future.

Unit 3, Lesson 3.2, Exercise D 1.14

Part 3

OK, now I'll at each of these model structures and explain what they are.

First of all, the independence structure is rather a special case. It is where the job requires highly qualified
professionals to work alone with their clients, and the organization only exists to support them to do so. Examples
are law firms, accounting and consultancy and private medical clinics. Power is essentially decentralized into each
and every practising professional.

A complete contrast is the second model - the entrepreneurial structure. Here, the decision- making is completely
centralized, and decisions are usually made quickly and easily. Businesses using this model are usually small because,
as a business grows, it becomes too much for the central entrepreneur to make every decision. Good Illustrations of
this structure are a small corner shop, a family-run plumbing business or creative agencies in online media,
advertising or media production. They are usually run by one expert who set up developed the firm.

The third one is the bureaucracy. It's the hierarchy that larger businesses tend to have, and decision-making is
shared out according to the roles of people in the hierarchy. People's jobs are more specialized. A large number of
procedures are set, and these decide how people work: what roles they have. Such larger businesses are sometimes
criticized for not being able to change quickly enough to meet demand. For example, it takes a long time in a big
bureaucratic corporation for a message or idea to reach every employee, because everything has to pass through
lines of management. Opportunities may be lost.
However, all large companies need not be like this. The fourth and final model is the matrix, possibly the most
common in large modern companies now. It accepts the hierarchy from top to bottom (vertical), but it adds another
dimension (horizontal). It creates tearns that cut across different departments. The members report not only to their
line managers in the chain of command, but also to someone on their own level. Horizontal teams are often put
together to work on special projects, such as those involving IT, or creating new ideas for quality. The benefit is that
the team receives input from representatives from all areas of the company. This structure can solve the problems of
a large bureaucracy, and it also gives people greater responsibility and therefore satisfaction. But there may be
additional difficulties, like the confusion of workers having two bosses, or the need for extra admin support.

Unit 3, Lesson 3.2, Exercise E 1.15

Part 4

So, to summarize what we've covered so far, the independence structure is the type of organization where
independent professionals like accountants or architects work alone but under the same roof. The entrepreneurial
structure is where one expert has strong central control in a smaller company. The bureaucracy is a larger and
traditional structure based on hierarchies with set roles and procedures. And the matrix is a larger but more modern
organization, where top-to-bottom hierarchies are criss-crossed with special teams with particular responsibilities.

Well, that's it for today. Next time, we'll look a bit more specifically into production planning and how companies
organize themselves to meet their production objectives. Don't forget to do a bit of reading on that before you
come. Thanks. See you soon.

Unit 5, Lesson 5.2, Exercise B 1.23

Part 1

Good morning, everyone. This morning, we're going to continue looking at the topic of strategy. You'll recall that
strategy is how actions and decisions are arranged to achieve the mission of a business. In this talk, I'm going to give
you an overview of four more key concepts, and then more on strategic planning will be dealt with next week. So…
er… let's see-yes-to start with, we need to consider firstly an idea many international managers are faced with. It's
the idea of international markets. Secondly, I want to talk to you about situation analysis. In other words, how do
managers understand the environment of other countries, especially the markets they wish to enter? Next, I'll
explain a little bit about why competition is so important in strategy. Yes, understanding your rivals is very definitely,
key. Finally, I'll finish up by briefly mentioning crisis and contingency planning because, among a number of
considerations, planning for possible disaster or failure is something every manager should know about and every
strategy should include.

Unit 5, Lesson 5.2, Exercise D 1.24

Part 2

Actually, understanding the environment is arguably the most important aspect of strategy nowadays, especially for
a company that wants to become an MNE (that's a multinational enterprise). That's the result of globalization. So, it
follows that an international manager has to perform situation analysis if expansion is going to succeed.

One common tool that is used for situation analysis is known as PESTEL. This stands for political, economic, social,
technological, environmental and legal. So what happens is, you analyze all these aspects within the country you
want to enter, to see if it's feasible to enter. What I mean is that you do a lot of research. Political and legal
questions you might ask could cover stability, government controls and trade laws. Economic questions might cover
local labour or currency and inflation issues. Social research might include studying demographic and cultural aspects
like religion and consumer tastes, while technological research might examine whether the country in question has
the infrastructure necessary for business. A good example of this is the local broadband uptake. And, of course,
environmental research means examining rules on pollution and what steps may need to be taken to protect local
stakeholders affected by your business. Altogether, the analysis will give you the information you need to
understand the market.

Unit 5, Lesson 5.2, Exercise E 1.25

Part 3

Anyway, er... to return to the main point- fundamentally, building a successful strategy depends on understanding
the business environment. So what else is there apart from PESTEL analysis? Well, first and foremost is analyzing and
understanding your competition. For example, if you are Nokia, your competition Includes Sony Ericsson and
Motorola.

If there are more competitors, your prices (and so your revenues) normally decrease. So it's essential to perform
competitor analysis. That's to say, you need to find out who your rivals are and what they are doing. For example,
does one of your competitors have a virtual monopoly? That is to say, does the rival have most of the market to
itself?

Naturally, you'll have to do some reading on this, and Michael Porter is the one to read. His model, called the Five
Forces Analysis, is essential for your study, and you will be using it for your assignment. It covers the threats of
competitors, of new entrants in the market and of substitutes for your product. It also covers the power of your
suppliers and customers. As management, this is helpful in informing your strategy.

OK. You'll be looking at a case study in the seminar. In the case study, we'll be using the same company in the same
foreign market as we mentioned last week. As you can see, five years ago Linda Brahman Steelmakers (LBS) had a
virtual monopoly, with a 96 per cent share of the steel market. But, following government deregulation of
steelmaking, the competition has boomed. LBS's market share has declined to 53 per cent. The market share of new
entrant Kumara Steel has soared and today stands at 36 per cent, while Ling Hao now makes up 11 per cent of the
market. And what's more, Fisher has remained stationary at 1 per cent throughout the five years... or... where was
1? Oh, yes. In terms of the seminar, we'll be applying Porter's model to Linda Brahman Steelmakers, so be sure to
read this competition case study carefully.

Unit 5, Lesson 5.3, Exercise B 1.26

Part 4

Now, even the best strategy can't plan for everything. Organizations can face financial crises or industrial action.
There can be sudden environmental issues which affect company image. Legal problems can occur from time to
time. Contingency planning is being ready for these challenges. Every strategy should have backup, which is what
we're talking about here. Often this means having contingency funds, or alternatives to fall back on, or good flexible
people in your firm. However,... oh dear... sadly, I see that we've run out of time. This means that I'll have to ask you
to do some research. I'd like you to find out whether LBS had any contingency plan in place for government
deregulation and the possibility of losing its monopoly. We'll discuss what you've found out next time I see you.

Unit 7, Lesson 7.2, Exercise B 1.31

Part 1

Good morning, everyone. What I'm going to talk about today is the financial concerns of managers at all levels: that
is, budgeting and quantitative decision-making. These come under the heading of management accounting... though
bear in mind that management accounting is quite different from financial accounting. The former is about budgets
and reports that help managers think about the future within a company in their day-to- day work, whereas the
latter-financial accounting is about producing reports about the present and past for people outside the company,
such as the tax department or shareholders, plus of course, the general public, including students like you! So the
likes of budgeting control inside a company, just for managers... is known as 'management accounting. It includes
forecasting sales or revenues coming in, and allocating budgets for spending. It's all about controlling and reviewing
these budgets to manage a business's working capital and liquidity.

Now, um... in later lectures, we'll go into more detail on costing jobs and projects and calculating break-even point
what mean by that is the lowest level of sales so that your profits just cover your costs. It's the minimum to survive
and not make a loss. But today we will just deal with budgeting and quantitative decision-making. OK, let's begin....

Unit 7, Lesson 7.2, Exercise C 1.32

Part 2

As we have seen in the seminars this week, a budget is usually thought of as an 'agreed plan', usually made one year
in advance, which details how much money is needed. As I said, a budget normally has to be prepared every year,
but there can be short-term as well as long-term ones. Examples of the long-term are capital budgets. These look at
equity, liabilities, assets and end-of- year cash over longer periods. On the other hand, shorter-term ones include
operating budgets which plan the use of a company's resources over time, looking at the profits expected - perhaps
daily, weekly or monthly - and the day-to-day cash available.

Unit 7, Lesson 7.2, Exercise E 1.33

Part 3

Yes, there are difficulties in budgeting: it is hard to rely on historical data for predicting what will come in the future.
What do I mean by 'historical data"? Forecasting is usually based on 'back data'(data from the past), and managers
will use it to try to look for trends or predictable changes, such as cyclical or seasonal fluctuations. This kind of
predicting is usually quantitative, which means mathematical. (As you can see on this slide, an example of a tool to
use for this is 'time series analysis").

However, looking at it another way, there are qualitative approaches. This is the opposite of quantitative, and it
means asking experts for their opinions.

So it's not straightforward. There are challenges in predicting. And all of this is costly. Yes, quite expensive. It is also
difficult to collect all the information for budgets and it takes time. Budgeting may also cause conflict over limited
funds between departments or staff.

But, of course, budgeting has its advantages: budgets help control spending, and they let managers review and
correct problems. They make managers more responsible and give them clearer targets and easier coordination and
communication.

A budget can have a favourable variance or an adverse variance. In other words, if the revenues or savings are better
than expected, it is "favourable' variance, and if they are worse than expected, it is 'adverse' variance. In fact,
managers may experience many different kinds; profit variances, materials or labour variances, or overheads
variances. They might have sales margin variances or cash variances.

Why does this matter? Well, the point is that analyzing the variance from what was budgeted allows the manager to
monitor performance and then find the causes. In this way, they can be more accurate in the future.

Unit 7, Lesson 7.2, Exercise F1.34

Part 4
Now...er... let's see... oh dear, we're running short of time... but perhaps I should just say something about
quantitative decision-making, as it is a basic tool for all managers.

In a nutshell, quantitative analysis is an important skill for managers involved in the business decision-making
process, and they use various methods for solving problems using statistical techniques, such as the normal
distribution model, and others.

The approach to solving a problem should firstly have clear objectives. It may include several courses of action to
choose from, whose benefits can be measured. That is to say, they should have measurable options to compare.
Each option, being uncertain, has a probability attached to the outcome. The manager, therefore, applies
probabilities to each alternative outcome. A probability is a likelihood-how likely it is that something will happen. It
measures uncertainty. Each option has a percentage probability applied to it.

Problems may also be solved by linking variables together. A variable is defined as something that can change. For
example, it may be useful to know if you can find a relationship between one variable -the summertime fall in sales
of a product, for instance- and another-say, the summer demand for certain product types in a market. Maths and
statistics can help us find such connections.

Managers tend to use computer software to help them with these techniques. What is essential in this respect is the
computer database. Company and government databases, for instance, are good places to find financial information.
Managers must learn how to get computers to help them manipulate data such as cost data, profit and revenue data
or supply and demand data.

And I must mention indices, too. A manager needs to know what an index is- it's an average number based on
several sources to illustrate a trend. The best examples are those which total the values of companies in a share
market: the Hang Seng, Nikkel, FTSE and Dow Jones indices. And then, of course, there are ratios. Now... ah, OK... I
see that time is moving on. So, I'm just going to...

Unit 9, Lesson 9.2, Exercise B 1.39

Part 1

Quiet, please! As future managers of people, this morning you're going to learn about motivating and developing
employees- and making the best of people. I'll outline some of the most important thinking about motivation and
rewards, and I'll go on and talk about learning and development later on.

But before we begin, I have a little story to tell you... I once worked for an importing and distribution company with a
very dynamic boss with fantastic ideas. There was a gap in the market, and his business was ready to fill it and make
a lot of money. However, he failed because he never invested anything in his staff. There were never any bonuses,
never nice words said or respect given, nor were there any courses. The workers and their conditions were
miserable. After our international customers had telephone contact with deeply unhappy workers, they quickly gave
up on us because of the unfriendly response they got. I lost my job after a year because the company went bust.

Of course, the point of the story is that people are the most important resource in your company, so pay attention to
them! So, OK... to get back to the main part of my lecture.

Now, in terms of motivation, let's start with some basic concepts managers need to know. Motivation is all about
satisfying people's needs. And research has shown that there are a lot of aspects to consider in understanding how
people are motivated and satisfied or dissatisfied. It's complex. So there are a number of experts that must be
mentioned first.

Firstly, look at this pyramid: Maslow (that's M-A-S-L-O-W) in 1954... categorized needs into groups by writing a
'hierarchy of needs' shaped like a pyramid... with physical needs at the bottom, security and safety next up, love and
belonging third, esteem or respect fourth, and self-actualization (being able to use your creativity to let things
happen) at the top.

Another area of thinking, by Elton Mayo (that's M-A-Y-O) in the 1930s, was a move away from management being
scientific and only focused on time, efficiency and waste. It was towards 'human relations' theory, which claimed
people work better when they feel they belong and are happy in their team relationships.

Douglas McGregor, in 1960, divideo workers into Theory X' and 'Theory Y. Theary X people tend to be lazier and are
motivated by pay or punishment only they need controlling by management. Theory Y people are self-motivated and
appreciate being independent in their work - management can give them projects to take charge of.

Another great mind, Herzberg, that's H-E-R-Z-B-E- R-G examined satisfaction... in 1960. he found two factors that
affect satisfaction. "Motivators' are things that give you job satisfaction, like being praised or promoted. Hygiene
factors (that's hygiene, H-Y-G-I-E-N-E, like the word meaning cleanliness) are factors that make a worker unsatisfied-
negative things like low pay, punishment, dangerous situations, etc., to be avoided.

All of these thinkers, and many others, have helped us to understand what makes people feel motivated to work
well or more effectively.

OK, so to start with, let's take a few moments to consider practical ways to motivate workers. Basically, it's all about
rewards. You have financial rewards and non-financial rewards. Financial rewards are about giving people money.
Non-financial are other ways to make them happy. There are three important aspects of rewarding people.

The first one is the most common: payments. You can pay staff a wage by the hour or day, or a salary by the month.
Sometimes there are set fees for jobs. Then there are commissions (like paying people 10% of the turnover of a job
or a transaction). And there are also benefits, like giving healthcare or insurance or the use of a car. It could be
argued that payments are the only way to reward. But as we shall see, there are useful ways other than through
financial rewards.

From the point of view of management, payments work well because the main reason people work is for money.
However, there are many considerations, like how your pay compares with your competitors. Who is going to recruit
the best and brightest people, do you think? That's right-the highest paying companies do... usually

For employees, issues to think about are whether the pay is fair, whether it lets them have a good standard of living
and how it compares with other professions and other people's incomes. For Theory X workers, it keeps them going.
It pays the bills for the needs at the lower end of Maslow's hierarchy: home costs, food, safety and such things.

The second area for discussion is called incentives. Increasingly, we find that businesses and other organizations give
bonuses or profit share, or even company shares, to their staff for reaching a target

or for working well during the year. This is performance-related pay (or PRP). Many companies do this: try to
measure what you produce or achieve and link your level of pay to it. Or they measure merits, like your flexibility or
punctuality. There are 'plece rates', for example, where you get paid for each item you make or task you carry out.
It's really payment for results, which seems like a good incentive to employees. And commissions are often an
incentive, because the bigger the business the bigger the commission paid. Like recruitment agents: the higher the
salary of the successful applicant they find, the higher their reward will be (the commission).

However, incentives can be hard to make completely fair. How can you truly measure a merit like cooperation? Will
these schemes distort how people work? What I mean is, will they find ways to cheat? It's true to say that PRP has a
good effect on productivity. But some people come to expect their bonus and see it as a normal part of their salary
rather than a reward for doing well. So its purpose is lost.

The third area to look at is non-financial rewards. What I mean by that is that most companies now realize that it
takes more than money to satisfy workers and make them do a good job. And so you 'design' a job to give a sense of
achievement, or recognition for doing well, or stimulating things to do in a safe environment. Theory Y type people
might welcome taking on more responsibility. Others may appreciate a social life, breaks, events and holidays. When
we look at non-financial rewards from a management point of view, we talk about job enlargement and enrichment
(which mean increasing a worker's range of work, responsibility or challenge, and perhaps their power to make
decisions). And there's job rotation (which means letting workers change jobs regularly to avoid getting bored). This
allows them to become multi-skilled or able to do a greater range of tasks. Also, letting people become part of
advisory teams, like quality circles that advise on products, gives them the respect of being an expert.

OK, so non-financial rewards are about making staff feel good. So it should be clear that money is not everything and
workers do want a healthy work-life balance, that is, a life that includes stimulation, community, social activity,
support in) times of stress or ill health, and so on... [fade]

Unit Lesson 9.2, Exercise C 1.40

Part 2

Of course, you will probably be thinking that one of the best ways to motivate through non-financial rewards is to
give the worker the promise of self- improvement and promotion, and yes, you are right-this can be achieved
through supporting them in learning and development. So let's now turn to learning and development.

In fact, the first piece of learning an employee does, ie, the first training a company tends to offer an employee, is
their induction programme. A good induction helps a worker understand the company and their position in it and is
important as newly employed individuals are the most likely to resign and leave a company.

Apart from inductions, there is simply a need for training because, with the fast-moving nature of industry, there is
often a shortage of skills. Governments usually help companies address this problem. They often provide training
schemes or incentives for companies to train.

Training may be necessary at the organizational level if there are completely new operational systems for everyone
to implement, for example. Or it may be smaller-scale: at the departmental level. Or it may be individual, according
to the needs of a single person.

In times of recession, training in companies may need to be cut back, and it does tend to be provided less when
times are hard. Training is costly. There are not only the costs of the training. but also the lost productivity of a
trainee not working on the days of the training.

Training can take place in many forms. There is graduate training which prepares newly employed graduates for
management positions. There are formal vocational courses that can earn the trainee a recognized qualification.
Then there are in-house courses (these are put on by the employer, either with internal or external trainers, and
either in the premises or away). Then there are various e- learning or online courses and distance-learning courses
that employees can attempt in their own time and at their own speed. Of course, there are all sorts of
apprenticeship schemes where a worker learns the job alongside another worker. A similar approach is job rotation,
where a worker learns about the company by trying a variety of jobs. These are sometimes called on-the-job
training, while an away-day would be off-the-job training. Finally, there are mentoring and coaching schemes, where
an individual mentor or coach works with a person one-to-one to allow them to grow and develop.

Of course, all training, whether it is learning a new computer software system, a health and safety procedure or
communication skills such as making presentations, must be planned. There must be a needs analysis beforehand -
research into what people need. And afterwards, the people who took part normally give an evaluation of the
training's success. Usually this is done by passing around a questionnaire.

So the question remains, who decides on training and when? And, of course, how? Well, perhaps the most obvious
time to discuss and agree on training needs is at appraisal. What is appraisal? Appraisal is a meeting that employees
have, usually with their line manager or another superior. In it, they identify what their goals are, how they fit with
the company's goals and are thus contributing, and whether they feel they are extended, challenged and growing.
Appraisal is a time when learning and development needs are often identified. It's collaborative-between the senior
and junior members. But there's also self-appraisal, where the worker appraises him or herself according to
guidelines given, and reports it. Or there is peer appraisal, whereby your colleagues appraise you and vice versa.
There is also what is known as 360- degree appraisal. 360-degree appraisal asks for the opinions of all these people
and also people below you in the hierarchy.

Um. Now, where was 17 Ch yes, I was about to talk about the importance of appraisal systems... to be successful,
they must be 'owned' and controlled by all the managers who administer the process. And these managers must be
trained properly and able to keep confidences (I mean be anonymous) when appropriate. The process must be clear
and open with a chance for everyone involved to participate fully. They must be efficient. And 'actions' that come
from the appraisals must be easy for people to implement.

So what exactly have we looked at this morning? Well, to sum up, we need to first emphasize that the development
of people is profoundly important in... [fade]

Unit 11, Lesson 11.2, Exercise B 1.46

Part 1

Good morning. I'm Charles P. Rodriguez, and it's a pleasure to be here today. My aim is to clarify what it means for a
company to have a marketing orientation. I'm also going to talk about what typical marketing objectives and
strategies are, from a management perspective. We'll talk about what market share is, and touch on branding; that
is to say, I shall introduce you to all the aspects of marketing that concern corporate senior management.

The marketing process itself we'll leave for your seminars, as we're taking a strictly top-down approach today. Don't
misunderstand me, I don't want to imply that this is all there is to marketing. Of course, a marketing manager has to
analyze the market, segment it, target her customers, position the product and formulate a marketing mix. But our
scope today is just a senior management view.

Now, before we get going, let's be dear that marketing is not the same as selling... as some people might think. What
is marketing? To some degree, every organization - no matter what it does-is involved in marketing activity. So firstly,
let's just go over the definition of marketing that you see here on the screen: it's any activity that helps buyers and
sellers exchange things-goods and services. Or you can use this one: the process by which managers can identify and
then anticipate consumer needs, and maybe wants, too, and then satisfy them profitably. So you can see -- there's a
lot to it.

Unit 11, Lesson 11.2, Exercise C 1.47

Part 2

So what is market orientation? Well, it's a move on from product orientation. It is said that, in the past, companies
used to be more product- orientated, that is to say, they were centred on the product and the production process.
"A good product will sell itself, they thought. And so, according to this view, advertising is hardly needed. In other
words, demand is simply created by supply! Usually this was true for unique, new products with little or no
competition... often products that were mass produced. You can imagine the very first toasters or vacuum cleaners
or other inventions for the home. Just the usefulness of the product was enough to move it-- to sell it.

Then, as competition grew, people began to realize that branding was needed to distinguish your products from
others. And so market orientation was born. A market-orientated company identifies and keeps reviewing the needs
of consumers, to try to meet them. Sony is famously market-orientated. So is Apple, with its fresh ideas for laptops,
cutting-edge designs, varied and smaller mobile music players and so on. These companies anticipate and respond
fast as the market changes... to changes in what people want, where they want it, how they want it and the price
they expect to pay. They are in constant dialogue with customers to fully understand their wishes.

A similar concept to think about is mass marketing as opposed to niche marketing. Mass marketing is where
products are undifferentiated ... they're all the same. Mass-marketed products like the original Coca-Cola are the
same the world over (and they're therefore also an example of 'global' marketing). The opposite of mass marketing
is differentiation through customization (that's designing products specifically for Individuals), or niche marketing. A
niche is a small segment of a market. Rolls-Royce cars are marketed to the rich who want to appear rich. A
presentation skills trainer only markets to professionals who are nervous about talking to audiences. These are
examples of where businesses focus, or 'niche', to a specific segment.

Now, there are several reasons why a company may engage in marketing. These are called marketing objectives.

First of all, they may simply want to grow by increasing their sales and their revenue. Growth is usually a central
concern of companies.

Secondly, they may want to get market share. Market share means the portion of the market that your company
has. So imagine that the Virgin Group, a strong brand with a fairly global reach, wants to launch Virgin jeans- yes,
blue jeans like Diesel and Levi's- it might want just one per cent of the market. The global jeans market is worth
perhaps over $40 billion. You can imagine that one per cent of $40 billion is a lot of money. So it'd be worth it. They
might even develop a market penetration strategy... market penetration is doing whatever it takes to get into a
market and get some market share. You could sell your jeans for less than they cost you, for example- in other
words, you could even lose money, simply to win market share. 3 Mobile did exactly this a few years ago in Britain to
capture mobile phone market share from the big players at the time: Orange, T- Mobile, Vodafone and O2. Yes,
increasing market share is a popular marketing strategy. And maintaining it is, too.

The company with the biggest share of the market is called the market leader. Microsoft is the market leader in the
software industry. Smaller companies will often follow the pricing of the market leader. And sometimes, they will
follow their quality and standards and other things, too. The companies with the next biggest share are called
market challengers. In the business of Internet browsers, the market challengers to Microsoft's Internet Explorer
software are Mozilla Firefox and Apple Safari. Netscape was a challenger and now no longer is. Smaller companies
that don't want to be market leaders or challengers are called market followers. Virgin Cola, for instance, or a
supermarket's own-brand cola, copy the market leaders, Pepsi and Coke, but don't try to challenge them for first and
second place.

Then there are less obvious marketing objectives, like launching new innovations - new products. Then there is
differentiating your products from your competitors.

Or another one is to become well-known- to get your brand into the minds of the public - to increase their
recognition of your brand.

Now, to achieve your goals- that is to say, to fulfil the marketing objectives- you need marketing strategies. A
strategy's 'how' something is done. For corporations, marketing strategies are linked to objectives.

They could be competitive strategies, for example. For these sorts of strategies, you would need to do what's called
competitor analysis. You need to do detailed research into your competitors' behaviour: who are they? (They might
not just be those that produce the same product; they might be those that satisfy the same need in a different
way)... what are their strengths and weaknesses?... and what are their strategies? Lots of research to do. This, of
course, all comes from Michael Porter's excellent book Competitive Strategy, published in 1980... and others he has
written since then.
One particularly effective competitive strategy he discusses is to become the cost leader. The purpose here is to be
known as the cheapest. Ryanair, for example, became Europe's first cost leader in the airline industry, and the
evidence indicates that easyJet was close behind.

Another strategy is differentiation - to be different. This is linked to the objective mentioned before: differentiating
your product. This is to try to give your company an "edge' aver others. British Airways, for example, actually used to
try to indulge its high-price-paying customers in little luxuries that you wouldn't expect.

Another strategy is focus. Or niche. Gucci, for example, only focuses on people with high disposable incomes who
are image-conscious- that is to say, it likes its image to signify a higher status in society. Other examples include
specialist organic supermarkets as opposed to normal supermarkets.

Or they could be strategies for growth. Most large companies want this.

Or they could be other strategies... strategies for market penetration (like I mentioned a few moments ago - an idea
first written about in the Harvard Business Review in 1957 by a fellow called Igor Ansoff-he's responsible for a few of
these!), market entry (which is entering a new country, for instance) or market expansion, product development
(that's introducing new products, like chocolate manufacturers do all the time with new types of chocolate bar),
market development (that's pushing existing products in new markets, like banks that open up overseas... or retail
chains moving into new countries).

Or strategies could be about changing the feeling that people have about a product in relation to other products
(that's called 'positioning"). Lucozade used to be a drink for the sick-to recover. Now it's seen as a sports drink. That's
an example of repositioning. Burberry used to be a practical weatherproof clothing brand associated with a
particular segment of the market, mostly elderly ladies. In 1998, it actively repositioned its products as luxury items.
Now, it's commonly believed that it always was a luxury brand!

Or a strategy could be in diversifying. Mercedes was always known for having large cars... until one day it woke up
and decided to capture the lower-priced but higher-volume small-car market as well. Now it covers both types and
more - vans and things, too! In my view, it's risky business. But that's called diversification.

OK. Now, I'm going to stop at this point and...