Mgt503 GDB Solution
Sunday, June 19, 2011 Posted In MGT Edit This“Principles of Management (MGT503)”
This is to inform that Graded Discussion Board (GDB) will be opened according to the following schedule
Schedule
Opening Date and Time
June 16 , 2011 At 12:01 A.M. (Mid-Night)
Closing Date and Time June 20 , 2011 At 11:59 P.M. (Mid-Night)
Discussion Question
This is to inform that Graded Discussion Board (GDB) will be opened according to the following schedule
Schedule
Opening Date and Time
June 16 , 2011 At 12:01 A.M. (Mid-Night)
Closing Date and Time June 20 , 2011 At 11:59 P.M. (Mid-Night)
Discussion Question
Introduction:For a business enterprise, strategies and policies are very important and are closely related to each other. Strategies are comprehensive plans of action, designed to help achieve organization’s goals within specified time. Policies are standing plans that provide the broader guidelines for directing managerial activities in pursuit of organizational goals.
Question:
Are strategies and policies as important in a not-for-profit organization (such as NGO, labour union, hospitals or city fire department) as they are in a business enterprise? Why or why not, give reasons.
Are strategies and policies as important in a not-for-profit organization (such as NGO, labour union, hospitals or city fire department) as they are in a business enterprise? Why or why not, give reasons.
Instructions:
Read the following instructions before giving your comments on GDB
Ø Your answer should be relevant to the topic i.e. clear and concise.
Ø Your answer should be sufficient but not more than 300 words.
Ø Do not copy or exchange your answer with other students. Two identical / copied comments will be marked Zero (0) and may damage your grade in the course
Read the following instructions before giving your comments on GDB
Ø Your answer should be relevant to the topic i.e. clear and concise.
Ø Your answer should be sufficient but not more than 300 words.
Ø Do not copy or exchange your answer with other students. Two identical / copied comments will be marked Zero (0) and may damage your grade in the course
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Solution:
Strategy for non-profit organizations:
Alert! Do knot copy paste as it is, just take your idea and make your GDB yourself or you will get 0 marks then do not complaint me, please And you have to write this not more then 300 words
Applying ideas about strategy to the not-for-profit world, which were created in the for profit world, needs to be done carefully. Clear difference in these types of organizations exist, one signefficient difference between for-profit and non-for-profit entities is how they each determine there effectiveness, While a wide variety of perspectives exist on nonprofit effectiveness, and it has been well argued that effectiveness is “socially constructed” (Herman & Renz, 1997, 1998, 1999), nonprofit effectiveness is often thought of in terms of mission (Sheehan, 1996) while for-profit effectiveness often focuses on “profit” and/or shareholder value (Smith, 1999 & 2004).
So, while for-profits may be mostly focused on ways to “outperform rivals” (Porter, 1996, p. 62), not-for-profits can be thought of as focused on “mission accomplishment”
(Sheehan, 1996). While there may be exceptions when a competitive mind-set is appropriate for a nonprofit to consider in developing strategy, most do not take this approach. In utilizing strategy concepts in nonprofit organizations, most practitioners, consultants, and authors use various strategy tools – while purging the ideas of “outperforming rivals,” growing shareholder value, and competition – from the process.
But if, those competitive drivers are purged, what is used as a replacement?
This paper argues that the replacement “driver” for competition in nonprofit organizations should be a new concept called “mission gap.” It is the foundational concept of a new model of strategy, described in the next section, which truly captures the essence of the difference between the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.
So, while for-profits may be mostly focused on ways to “outperform rivals” (Porter, 1996, p. 62), not-for-profits can be thought of as focused on “mission accomplishment”
(Sheehan, 1996). While there may be exceptions when a competitive mind-set is appropriate for a nonprofit to consider in developing strategy, most do not take this approach. In utilizing strategy concepts in nonprofit organizations, most practitioners, consultants, and authors use various strategy tools – while purging the ideas of “outperforming rivals,” growing shareholder value, and competition – from the process.
But if, those competitive drivers are purged, what is used as a replacement?
This paper argues that the replacement “driver” for competition in nonprofit organizations should be a new concept called “mission gap.” It is the foundational concept of a new model of strategy, described in the next section, which truly captures the essence of the difference between the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Policies and Strategies are equally important for an NGO as for a commercial enterprise. When the costs of an NGO’s core activities exceed the inflow of grants and donations, it is forced to either reduce the quantity and/or quality of its work, or to find new sources of funds to cover the difference. Reaching out to new donors with innovative fund-raising approaches is usually the first step. Redesigning program activities to include cost recovery components, whereby the beneficiaries or clients of the NGO pay part of program costs, is a second approach. These are the examples for business strategies for NGOs whereas it is impossible to implement a strategy without policies.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Applying ideas about strategy to the not-for-profit world, which were created in the for profit world, needs to be done carefully. Clear difference in these types of organizations exist, one signefficient difference between for-profit and non-for-profit entities is how they each determine there effectiveness, While a wide variety of perspectives exist on nonprofit effectiveness, and it has been well argued that effectiveness is “socially constructed” (Herman & Renz, 1997, 1998, 1999), nonprofit effectiveness is often thought of in terms of mission (Sheehan, 1996) while for-profit effectiveness often focuses on “profit” and/or shareholder value (Smith, 1999 & 2004).
So, while for-profits may be mostly focused on ways to “outperform rivals” (Porter, 1996, p. 62), not-for-profits can be thought of as focused on “mission accomplishment” (Sheehan, 1996). While there may be exceptions when a competitive mind-set is appropriate for a nonprofit to consider in developing strategy, most do not take this approach. In utilizing strategy concepts in nonprofit organizations, most practitioners, consultants, and authors use various strategy tools – while purging the ideas of “outperforming rivals,” growing shareholder value, and competition – from the process.
But if, those competitive drivers are purged, what is used as a replacement?
This paper argues that the replacement “driver” for competition in nonprofit
organizations should be a new concept called “mission gap.” It is the foundational concept of a new model of strategy, described in the next section, which truly captures the essence of the difference between the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Applying ideas about strategy to the not-for-profit world, which were created in the forprofitworld, needs to be done carefully. Clear difference in these types of organization ist, one sign-efficient difference between for-profit and non-for-profit entities is howthey each determine there effectiveness, While a wide variety of perspectives exist onnonprofit effectiveness, and it has been well argued that effectiveness is “sociallyconstructed” (Herman & Renz, 1997, 1998, 1999), nonprofit effectiveness is oftenthought of in terms of mission (Sheehan, 1996) while for-profit effectiveness oftenfocuses on “profit” and/or shareholder value (Smith, 1999 & 2004).
So, while for-profits may be mostly focused on ways to “outperform rivals” (Porter,1996, p. 62), not-for-profits can be thought of as focused on “mission accomplishment”(Sheehan, 1996). While there may be exceptions when a competitive mind-set isappropriate for a nonprofit to consider in developing strategy, most do not take this approach. In utilizing strategy concepts in nonprofit organizations, most practitioners,consultants, and authors use various strategy tools – while purging the ideas of“outperforming rivals,” growing shareholder value, and competition – from the process.But if, those competitive drivers are purged, what is used as a replacement?
This paper argues that the replacement “driver” for competition in nonprofitorganizations should be a new concept called “mission gap.” It is the foundationalconcept of a new model of strategy, described in the next section, which truly capturesthe essence of the difference between the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Applying ideas about strategy to the not-for-profit world, which were created in the for profit world, needs to be done carefully. Clear difference in these types of organizations exist, one signefficient difference between for-profit and non-for-profit entities is how they each determine there effectiveness, While a wide variety of perspectives exist on nonprofit effectiveness, and it has been well argued that effectiveness is “socially constructed” (Herman & Renz, 1997, 1998, 1999), nonprofit effectiveness is often thought of in terms of mission (Sheehan, 1996) while for-profit effectiveness often focuses on “profit” and/or shareholder value (Smith, 1999 & 2004).
So, while for-profits may be mostly focused on ways to “outperform rivals” (Porter, 1996, p. 62), not-for-profits can be thought of as focused on “mission accomplishment” (Sheehan, 1996). While there may be exceptions when a competitive mind-set is appropriate for a nonprofit to consider in developing strategy, most do not take this approach. In utilizing strategy concepts in nonprofit organizations, most practitioners, consultants, and authors use various strategy tools – while purging the ideas of “outperforming rivals,” growing shareholder value, and competition – from the process.
But if, those competitive drivers are purged, what is used as a replacement?
This paper argues that the replacement “driver” for competition in nonprofit
organizations should be a new concept called “mission gap.” It is the foundational concept of a new model of strategy, described in the next section, which truly captures the essence of the difference between the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Applying ideas about strategy to the not-for-profit world, which were created in the forprofitworld, needs to be done carefully. Clear difference in these types of organization ist, one sign-efficient difference between for-profit and non-for-profit entities is howthey each determine there effectiveness, While a wide variety of perspectives exist onnonprofit effectiveness, and it has been well argued that effectiveness is “sociallyconstructed” (Herman & Renz, 1997, 1998, 1999), nonprofit effectiveness is oftenthought of in terms of mission (Sheehan, 1996) while for-profit effectiveness oftenfocuses on “profit” and/or shareholder value (Smith, 1999 & 2004).
So, while for-profits may be mostly focused on ways to “outperform rivals” (Porter,1996, p. 62), not-for-profits can be thought of as focused on “mission accomplishment”(Sheehan, 1996). While there may be exceptions when a competitive mind-set isappropriate for a nonprofit to consider in developing strategy, most do not take this approach. In utilizing strategy concepts in nonprofit organizations, most practitioners,consultants, and authors use various strategy tools – while purging the ideas of“outperforming rivals,” growing shareholder value, and competition – from the process.But if, those competitive drivers are purged, what is used as a replacement?
This paper argues that the replacement “driver” for competition in nonprofitorganizations should be a new concept called “mission gap.” It is the foundationalconcept of a new model of strategy, described in the next section, which truly capturesthe essence of the difference between the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.
