Educating ESME Comprehensive Reflection

Every teacher’s worst nightmare – that is the setting to which Madame (whatever you do don’t call her Mrs. ) Esme Raji Codell stepped into as her first job fresh out of college. In this sink or swim world Esme, unknowingly, became a lifeguard to thirty youngsters, as she seemed the only one who could protect the children from the rough waters that are inner city Chicago. Through studying her very candid and personal diary, I am awe stricken by her extraordinary display of pedagogy as she exemplifies what it truly means to be a teacher.Esme’s proficiency in her dealings with situations surrounding equity, creating a safe, relaxed and positive classroom environment, expectations as a teacher, gender, diversity learning, multicultural competence and accommodation are, at times, straight out of a teacher’s workshop. Some might argue with her protocol, as she is both sharp-tongued and downright stubborn, but none can call to question her motive or incapa city for complacency.As every teacher goes into the workplace, first year, or twenty-fifth, and despite any subconscious fear you might possess of the hideous class you might be challenged to educate, there is always a certain comfort in knowing that, regardless the case, you have the support of your administration to uphold most any rational expectation you place on your students. As the school year drew near, I’m sure this was the case even for Madame Esme, as she seemed eager to start her first year of teaching. She set her expectations high in all aspects and from day one seemed determined to see her students achieve accordingly.She maintained her ideals throughout the year, though, it becomes more evident that her superiors might not share such idealistic values. No case more true than is seen on May 4th. After trying to reach a male student, B. B. , who seems to be having behavioral problems related to his home life, Esme finds herself separating her student from a â₠¬Å"big pounding fight on the playground† (Codell, 1999). In the aftermath which followed, Esme receives a tongue lashing from B. B. in which he directly calls her a bitch. Outraged, Codell storms into the office of her incompetent principal, Mr.Turner, and continues to share with him her disgust of the issue. Full of remarks which any rational person would have left to thought, she gladly gave to Mr. Turner in words. Summoned up, her venting stood strongly on the fact that she didn’t get paid to be called names of that sort, and she both didn’t have to, and wouldn’t tolerate such. Reasonable†¦ justified†¦ maybe, maybe not? All the same, nothing in my (and hopefully anyone else’s) study of education could have prepared me, or apparently her, for his unprecedentedly repulsive response. â€Å"You don’t understand.They’re black†¦ It’s just the way black people are. The black child is different. They deal with so much . Drugs, gangs†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Codell, 1999). How can one articulate the hopelessness of such a situation? I am deeply saddened at the thought that this is based on the account of a real conversation, which took place at a real school, concerning the expectations of real kids. Profound knowledge directly linked to the situation can be found in the Pygmalion Study (Rosenthal, 1992) where student achievement was found to be directly proportional to the expectations placed on them by teachers and administrators.Knowing that this was the standard set for students school wide, one may only speculate at the vast number of children who fell victim to such complacency and negativity. As I am only able to imagine how detrimental it must have been to Esme’s moral in that moment to hear such foulness reign down from your superior, I commend her in the highest fashion for the manner in which she handled herself before him. I only hope that I have the courage to stand so boldly should I fi nd myself under such circumstances. The months of April and May seem to be full of touching moments in Madame Esme’s first year.I found myself rather moved in taking stance from an omnipresent perspective. On tax day, Codell finds herself frustrated with Latoya, a young black girl in her class, seeing as it was the fourth consecutive day she had been a half hour late (Codell, 1999). Bound by her own pledge to professionalism in educating the kids she is so blessed to have, Madame shows sign that she might possess human qualities, after all, when she admits that she was inclined to yell at Latoya as she was becoming frustrated on having to repeat herself, consecutively.However, Esme is able to withhold her wit and refrains from doing so as she has vowed to talk and listen privately, as of late. Upon speaking with the student alone in the hall, Latoya calmly informs her that â€Å"they are in the shelter this week and [she] must drop her little sister off and take the train ov er†¦ it takes longer than [expected]† (Codell, 1999). Stepping back a moment to gain perspective, these are fifth graders. The same one where you look forward to daily recess freshly removed from the ideas that the opposite sex have ‘coodies’ and light up sneakers are cool.Remember? Oh, yeah! And you walk your sister to drop her off in the mornings before school and then jump on the inner-city Chicago train to get to school, yourself. As a teacher, you’re taught that your students will live very different lives and of the necessity to make accommodations accordingly. Students’ backgrounds cover a vast spectrum, and in order to achieve equity in your classroom, you must accommodate these students and cater to their specific needs so that, they too, have an opportunity to be successful.Latoya’s story, in particular, strikes me a little too close for comfort. In fact, it is unsettling to know that these situations are not the exception in su ch areas, but can be found, all too, commonly when the teacher takes a closer look. Is it because, like many, my childhood was so very contrasting to what you find, time and again, throughout the diary? I was pleased with the mild temperament in which Esme handled the situation. She made it clear that Latoya had done a good thing and that she appreciated it, followed by a means of accounting for any work that she might have missed.I find it especially significant that she reflected clearly reflected on the matter, and how close she had come to scolding the student who in all actuality, deserved praise. â€Å"I still burned with shame at the thought of what I almost said and at all the occasions I have spoken harshly† (Codell, 1999). These are words which should be heard as an echo in the minds of every teacher following his or her sharp tongue. As a boy, myself, I will attest based on my personal account that boys are in crisis.Though, I was clearly not in a state of mind to fathom it at the time, I (and most other boys alike) struggled with the restraints of public school. Sitting in a desk for an hour or so at a time with, but, five minutes to use up all of my energy in the hallways before my next bound session was rough to say the least. It is trying on a boy’s soul. Comprehending what the teacher is scribing on the board is the least of your worries, so paper folded in some fashion or another becomes a common means of passing time. Other days, it’s the kid sitting next to you.Meanwhile, you, likely those around you, are missing out on the entire point of being there – education. Esme seemed to have mastery understanding of this early on whether she fully knew the science behind it, or not. Though, she makes just a small note, a few words says it all. In what appeared to be Esme, merely, jotting down a few random observations for her diaries’ sake she hit on something rather insightful. â€Å"June 4th†¦ Kyle performs better in math if I let him stand on his head whenever he wants. † (Codell, 1999). Now what does this mean?The fact of the matter is, when you let boys get their raw physical energy out they are significantly more receptive to the idea of sitting at a desk and learning, as well as more proficient in doing so (Slocumb, 2004). Girls learning styles and general behavior are more in tune with the establishment of the public school system, when compared to boys. These are gender specific issues that you must be aware of in the classroom. As anyone who has ever been through grade school knows, being different can create a problem for you among peers, and a grand one at that.Whether that difference be the way you dress, your intelligence, speech patterns, race, ethnicity, customs, physical trait, the way you act or any of the other items which fall into such an infinite classification, that difference is enough to land you on the wrong end of someone’s jokes. While, we have l earned that regardless of their likeness, there are as many differences within groups of people as can be found between one another. Thus, there are no real grounds to single anyone out under the premise that they are different.However, this is a concept far, too, fetched for fifth graders†¦ usually. Early on in the year, September 27th, Madame Esme read the story The Hundred Dresses by Eleanor Estes to her class. The plot of the tale is about a little girl who claims to have one hundred dresses, despite wearing the same one to school every day. After being teased, endlessly, the poor girl moves away. Then her peers come to find that she truly does own a beautiful hundred dresses like she had said†¦ one hundred drawings of dresses.The story is significant because following its closure, Ashworth, a boy in class stood up and whispered to Madame that he had something to share with the class. Esme speaks aloud to the class to give him their attention, as expected; then, she ad ds â€Å"I hope you will keep in mind The Hundred Dresses when he tells you. † Stuttering, Ashworth gets out â€Å"I†¦ I only have nine and a half fingers. Please don’t tease me about it. † (Codell, 1999). In her journal, Codell is quoted in describing the moment as macabre (Codell, 1999).After the silence which she captures eloquently, students speak out to defend him one after another with claims that they’ll kick anyone’s ass who says something. If you’ve ever witnessed someone publicly disclosing something truly personal about themselves such as this before, then perhaps you can grasp what a spectacular moment this must have been. As a teacher, you know this is a victory. This is one of those extraordinary moments that pay back to the nth degree, but can’t be found via pay stub on Friday. As a teacher, there’s not much that you can do here. This is, in a way, above you.You don’t create these moments, they happen . You do, however, create a safe, positive, comfortable environment where the students can relax and learn. Madame monitored the situation as best she could in the moment, but the true credit here, she began earning the first day when the students walked in. She earns it daily with her greeting, â€Å"Trouble Basket†, and word exercises as the students enter her classroom. Further, she is helping to break down the walls between individuals and helping them to come forth with their problems, all via her classroom environment.While we have gathered that we are all so, very, different in our many personal traits and attributes, gender, and even the background that we come from, the same holds true for our learning styles in the classroom. If there is any single thing which Madame Esme might have gotten most right, it must be her diversity in teaching styles. This is so intrinsically related to many principles of teaching associated with differences. Students learn in different w ays just as they do all others things differently and to varying degrees from one another.Esme has been deemed crazy over the course of the year for her outrageous methods including the way she dresses, herself, at times. In a list from June ninth, â€Å"†¦ we made light-up quiz games†¦ put on shadow puppet shows†¦ built an accurate castle†¦ had a bubble festival†¦ made sushi†¦ made video commercials†¦ had a book character masquerade party†¦ went to an outdoor Beethoven concert†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Codell, 1999). The previous is even an incomplete list of the interesting lessons she remembers doing. It doesn’t include any of the larger activities which she discussed in depth, over the course of her diary.The point is that the more diverse your teaching techniques, the more effective you are as a teacher. This is evident in the beginning of the same journal entry in which Esme notes that the results from her kids Iowa reading and math scores were the best in the school and virtually every student jumped at least one year in their performance from previous tests (Codell, 1999). What else do you say to this? Cliche as it may seem, â€Å"talk is cheap. † These results explain it all, as they are a testament to the effectiveness of diversity teaching and learning methods.In evaluating Madame Esme Raji Codell, one must understand that any findings would be incomplete so long as they didn’t include accreditation for her work regarding multicultural competence. In this country, we have had a real problem accommodating cultures other than our own. Oh, how quickly we forget that our nation was started by a diverse group whom had all made the voyage to the new land from their parent countries, alike. Over the last few hundred years, America developed foul sense of self pride which demanded others become like us. When in all actuality, it would be impossible to concretely define what we are.Thus, the justly concept o f multicultural pluralism and multicultural competence have since been born. Esme, the poster child for such innovative practices, exemplifies everything which the terms stand for. Madame wore a sari, a type of scarf, given as a gift to her by a student from another country (one of three) without much more thought than to show her gratitude, it seemed (Codell, 1999). The next day, she had four girls waiting on her, all dressed in customary fashion from the native land, seemingly inspired by the window of opportunity Codell had given them the day prior.In another instance, she allowed her female student to perform a cultural dance, which the student began without asking during class. Such was allowed. It was merely the girl looking to express herself and in the process everyone else enjoyed it. When studying the Mexican-American War Madame brought in a native Hispanic man to lecture on Mexico’s perspective of the war. This is multicultural competence. I commend her for, in the midst of her diversity teaching and learning styles, she includes these fine principles, which in turn, encourages cultural pluralism and combats assimilation of culturally diverse students.They are more fluently understood for their practices and, consequently, increasingly accepted among fellow students. In studying this diary†¦ this epic monologue†¦ this compilation of pedagogy†¦ I wonder now, What do you conclude from this? What is the one thing that you can take with you from this? It’s an answer so vast that it cannot be defined in this, mere, manuscript. What is my conclusion you ask? My conclusion is this: what more might I add that Madame Esme Raji Codell has not already taught us? In my eyes, she is the model for twenty-first century teachers in America. She is motivated to educate, not just teach.She is determined to succeed, rather than participate. She strives to make a difference, rather than be a part of the problem. And, may God have mercy on t he incompetent individual who stands in her way. These dispositions compiled with a hunger for knowledge, an inclination to reflect, a conscience to admit when wrong, and a sense of humor to laugh about it at the end of the day are the ingredients for success in the teaching profession. Such are the characteristics of a fine fifth grade teacher by the name of Madame Esme and such are the very reasons why her name will not be forgotten.

Distinctive Marketing, IT Capabilities, and Strategic Types: A Cross-National Investigation

Distinctive Marketing and Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types: A Cross-National Investigation ABSTRACT Keywords: strategic typology, firm capabilities, cross-national, Japan, China The authors examine the relationship between strategic type and development of distinctive marketing, market-linking, technology, and information technology (IT) capabilities to implement innovation strategy. They hypothesize that prospectors must build technical and IT capabilities, whereas defenders develop market-linking and marketing capabilities. The authors collect data from 709 firms across the United States, Japan, and China.They find support for their capability hypotheses, as well as for some of their cross-national hypotheses that are based on cultural and business environment differences among the three countries. In particular, they find support for the hypotheses that Japanese firms have greater technology and IT capabilities than U. S. firms of the same strategic type. Th ey conclude with implications for management. The strategic typology of Miles and Snow (1978) has received much attention in the marketing and management literature over the past two decades (e. g. Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; Dyer and Song 1997, 1998; Griffin and Hauser 1996; Gupta, Raj, and Wilemon 1986; McDaniel and Kolari 1987; McKee, Varadarajan, and Pride 1989; Parry and Song 1993, 1994; Ruekert and Walker 1987; Song and Xie 2000; Walker et al. 2003). Almost 30 years after its initial appearance in the literature, their typology is viewed widely as having stood the test of time and is still the most popular and commonly accepted model of strategic types in the management literature, having been applied in many different industry settings (DeSarbo et al. 005; DeSarbo et al. 2006; Hambrick 2003). Miles and Snow envision strategy as the patterns in the decisions by which a strategic business unit (SBU) aligns itself with its environment, and they categorize SBUs according to these patterns. The critical underlying variable in their typology is the rate of change in an SBU’s products or markets. Using an exploratory empirical study, Miles and Snow propose four strategic types—prospectors, analyzers, defenders, and reactors—and suggest that each of the first three types chooses a different competitive strategy ith respect to products and/or markets: Prospectors will innovate technologically and seek out new markets, analyzers will prefer a â€Å"second-but-better† strategy, and defenders will focus on maintaining a secure niche in a relatively stable Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto Journal of International Marketing  © 2008, American Marketing Association Vol. 16, No. 1, 2008, pp. 4–38 ISSN 1069-031X (print) 1547-7215 (electronic) 4 product or service area.Miles and Snow suggest that all three of these strategic types can be successful if the SBU matches its strategy to the competitive en vironment and develops and deploys appropriate capabilities. Capabilities have been broadly defined as â€Å"complex bundles of skills and accumulated knowledge that enable firms [or SBUs] to coordinate activities and make use of their assets† (Day 1990, p. 38). In this article, we examine the relationship between Miles and Snow’s (1978) strategic type and four capability constructs: technology, market linking, marketing, and information technology (IT).Day (1994) suggests that both technology and market-linking capabilities (or â€Å"insideout† and â€Å"outside-in† capabilities, respectively) are critical to sustained competitive advantage and superior performance (see also Day 1990; Day and Wensley 1988). Technology capabilities, which enable the organization to improve production process efficiencies and ultimately reduce its costs and increase its competitiveness, include financial management, cost control, technology development, logistics, manufact uring, and other processes with an internal emphasis.Market-linking capabilities, which enable the organization to use its technology capabilities to exploit marketplace opportunities, include market sensing, channel bonding, customer linking, technology monitoring, and spanning processes such as purchasing and new product development (Day 1994). Marketing capabilities, such as customer and competitive knowledge, skill in market segmentation and targeting, and effective marketing program design, should also be related to an organization’s performance. In a ioneering study, Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan (1990) link marketing capabilities to the four strategic types and find that prospectors are superior in marketing capabilities. The marketing literature suggests that obtaining market and competitive information and diffusing it throughout the organization lead to better market orientation, better performance, and sustainable competitive advantage (Day 1994; Jaworski and Kohl i 1993). The literature also suggests that IT capabilities are increasingly important means to these ends.Research in both the marketing and new product streams has recognized the difficulty of communication across functional boundaries and has identified ways to improve both the quantity and quality of information (Dyer and Song 1997, 1998; Griffin and Hauser 1992, 1993, 1996; Montoya-Weiss and Calantone 1994; Parry and Song 1993, 1994; Ruekert and Walker 1987; Song, Thieme, and Xie 1998; Song and Xie 2000; Swink and Song 2007). All four capability constructs include significant marketing processes. The original, exploratory Miles and Snow (1978) research finds relationships between firm capabilities andInformation Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 5 strategic types in a limited number of industries. A subsequent study in this research stream empirically examines the relationships between marketing capabilities and strategic types and also validates a scale for assessing a business unit’s strategic type (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990). Two recent studies by DeSarbo and colleagues (2005, 2006) propose and empirically test models that include a range of capabilities in addition to marketing capabilities.DeSarbo and colleagues (2005) use SBU data from three countries (the United States, China, and Japan) to derive a descriptive strategic typology that improves on the Miles and Snow typology in terms of explanatory power; this study is extended by DeSarbo and colleagues (2006) to a predictive model that examines causalities between strategic capabilities and SBU performance. The first objective of the current study is to examine the relationships between an SBU’s strategic type and its development of the four distinctive organizational capabilities technology, market linking, marketing, and IT). This research extends the previously mentioned research stream (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; DeSarbo et al. 2005; DeSarbo et al. 200 6) in that we seek to quantify and to better understand these relationships. The second objective is to build and test hypotheses regarding cross-national differences and their effects on the relationships between strategic type selection and the capabilities, a topic in which no empirical work has been conducted so far. We gather empirical data from three countries: the United States, China, and Japan.As China and Japan are the two largest East Asian economies, and together with the United States make up the three largest economies worldwide as measured by purchasing power (World Bank 2000), it is important to examine how firms from these countries compare with respect to their capabilities and strategies. Although DeSarbo and colleagues (2005) use a three-country database to build their descriptive typology, the research does not use the extant international marketing and management literature to build or test hypotheses of cross-national differences.We believe that the cross-nati onal hypothesis testing constitutes a clear extension to the work of Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan (1990) and DeSarbo and colleagues (2005, 2006). We first propose a set of four hypotheses relating an SBU’s relative capabilities to its selection of strategic type, as well as four additional hypotheses expressing expected crossnational differences in the magnitudes of the capabilities. We then test these hypotheses using a data set of 709 managers from the United States, Japan, and China. Our empirical results largely confirm these hypotheses. We conclude by 6 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C.Anthony Di Benedetto providing theoretical implications and some possible prescriptions for managers seeking to improve their organization’s strategy selection. In this section, we define the Miles and Snow (1978) typology and discuss the implication of the strategic selection. We then define the four capability constructs and develop four hypotheses relating the capability co nstructs to strategic type. The Miles and Snow (1978) strategic types differ in the rate at which they change products or markets in response to environmental change. According to Miles and Snow, prospectors are the leaders of change in their industry.They operate within a broad product-market domain that undergoes periodic redefinition (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; Dyer and Song 1997). They value being â€Å"first in† in new product and market areas as market pioneers even if not all these efforts prove to be highly profitable (Robinson and Fornell 1985; Robinson, Fornell, and Sullivan 1992). They often need to respond rapidly to early signals involving areas of opportunity, and these responses often lead to a new round of competitive actions. Nevertheless, prospectors may not maintain market strength in all the areas they enter.They compete principally through launching new products and meeting new marketplace opportunities. Consequently, they devote significant res ources to new product development, market research, and other marketing expenses (Hambrick 1983; McDaniel and Kolari 1987; Shortell and Zajac 1990; Walker et al. 2003). Prospectors also rely on close ties with the channel of distribution to anticipate customer needs and environmental changes (Walker et al. 2003). Sony’s audio products SBU, which is responsible for innovations such as the Walkman, is an example of a typical prospector organization.Defenders attempt to locate and maintain a secure niche in a relatively stable product or service area. They are less risk oriented than prospectors; typically they do not look outside well-defined product-market domains for new opportunities (McDaniel and Kolari 1987; Shortell and Zajac 1990). Rather than invest time in new product or market development, they tend to offer a more limited range of products or services than their competitors, and they focus on resource efficiency and cost-cutting process improvements to try to protect their domain by offering higher quality, superior service, lower prices, and so forth (Hambrick 1983).Defenders are normally not at the forefront of developments in the industry. Walker and colleagues (2003) distinguish between two defender strategies: price cutting and competitive differentiation. Unlike Sony’s audio SBU, Matsushita’s audio division, a typical defender organization, is likely to focus not on developing products but rather on cutting manufacturing costs (Lieberman and Montgomery 1988). HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT The Miles and Snow Strategic Typology Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 7 Analyzers show qualities of both defenders and prospectors.They attempt to maintain a stable, limited line of products or services, while moving out quickly to follow a carefully selected set of the more promising new developments in the industry (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; Dyer and Song 1997). Analyzers are seldom â€Å"first in† with new products or services. However, by carefully monitoring the actions of major competitors in areas compatible with their stable product-market base, they are frequently â€Å"second in† with a more cost-efficient product or service (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; Dyer and Song 1997).For example, they might develop a new product in a stable market domain or sell established products in new geographic markets or through new distribution channels. They can operate in different domains, perhaps one stable and one more turbulent (McDaniel and Kolari 1987). Miles and Snow (1978, p. 73) characterize analyzers as â€Å"avid followers of change,† always ready to pursue a promising, emerging product or market with a later-entrant, â€Å"second-but-better† strategy (Robinson, Fornell, and Sullivan 1992).They can initiate product and/or market development, but less often than prospectors; at the same time, they can focus on stability and efficiency, but to a lesser extent than defenders (Hambrick 1983). Reactors typically lack long-term plans and any consistent strategy, instead reacting to environmental pressures as necessary (McDaniel and Kolari 1987). Empirical study has suggested that prospectors, analyzers, and defenders all perform well (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; Miles and Snow 1978) and generally outperform reactors.We are interested primarily in the relative capabilities of the three potentially successful archetypal strategic types, so we do not explicitly include reactors in our hypotheses. We have gathered data from reactor organizations, however, and included them in our analysis section. To create economic value, sustain competitive advantage, and achieve superior profitability, an organization requires a wide range of capabilities. Although it would be impossible to list them all, certain categories of capabilities common to many organizations have been identified and used in prior research (e. . , Day 1994; DeSarbo et al. 2006). Technology capabilities—such as financial management, cost control, technology development, and logistics—enable an organization to keep costs down and to differentiate its offerings from those of competitors. Market-linking capabilities—such as sensing market trends, channel and customer linking, and technology monitoring—enable an organization to be responsive to changing customer needs and to use its technical capabilities effectively to exploit external possibilities (Day 1994). Marketing capabilities—such as skill in segmentation,Organizational Capabilities 8 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto targeting, pricing, and advertising—enable the organization to take advantage of its market-sensing and technological capabilities and to implement effective marketing programs (Song and Parry 1997a, 1997b). Finally, IT capabilities enable the organization to diffuse market information effectively across all rel evant functional areas so that it can direct new product development. Not all organizations will have all of these capabilities (Day and Nedungadi 1994; Day and Wensley 1988).Furthermore, organizations will solidify and even develop their particular capabilities through time according to their strategic type, as Miles and Snow’s (1978) classification posits. For example, prospectors tend to compete by anticipating new product or marketplace opportunities and by implementing technological innovation; continued, successful prospecting will have the effect of strengthening inside-out and IT capabilities. The subsequent sections explore the hypothesized relationships between strategic type and organizational capabilities.Market-linking and -sensing capabilities enable the organization to compete by sensing market changes effectively, anticipating shifts in the market environment, creating and retaining durable links with customers, and creating strong bonds with channel members s uch as wholesalers and retailers. These capabilities enable the organization to sense marketplace requirements before competitors and to connect its other capabilities to the external environment (Day 1994). Organizations of all strategic types need well-developed market-linking capabilities.For defenders, however, such capabilities are particularly critical because these organizations must correctly and quickly anticipate changes in the market and their customers’ needs if they are to maintain their prominence within their existing product-market domain (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990). Because defenders attempt to locate and maintain a secure niche in a relatively stable product or service area, they tend to offer a more limited range of products or services than their competitors, and they try to protect their domain by offering higher quality, superior service, lower prices, and so forth.To be effective in achieving these objectives, defenders must possess a high lev el of market-linking capabilities. Walker and colleagues (2003) also note that tracking changes in customer needs and competitive behavior is especially important to a differentiated defender strategy. They note that defenders should be strongest in business functions related to their competitive strategy, such as market sensing and linking. Although prospectors should also have good market-linking capabilities, their ability to sustain competitive advantage is more closely tied to the development of new products, markets, and technologies.Therefore, although Market-Linking Capabilities Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 9 market-linking capabilities are important to prospectors and analyzers, defenders will need them most. Our expectations about organizational strategy types and market-linking capabilities (relative to competitors) can be summarized as follows: H1: Along the prospectors–analyzers–defenders continuum, prospectors have the least rel ative marketlinking capabilities, nd defenders have the greatest. Technical capabilities involve the manufacturing processes, technology, new product development, production facilities, and forecasting of technological change in the industry. They are contained within the organization and activated by market, competitor, and external challenges and opportunities. By increasing efficiency in the production process, they can reduce costs and improve consistency in delivery and, therefore, competitiveness (Day 1994).Although technical capabilities are likely to be important for all strategic types, they should be most important to prospectors, which prosper in unstable, changing environments, especially those marked by rapid technological change such as biotechnology, medical care, and aerospace (Walker et al. 2003). Because prospectors use a first-to-market strategy and typically operate within a broad product-market domain that undergoes periodic redefinition (Robinson, Fornell, and Sullivan 1992), they must be able to develop new technologies, products, and markets rapidly (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; McDaniel and Kolari 1987).Walker and colleagues (2003) note that prospectors require strength in product research and development (R&D) and product engineering, and they perform best when the amount spent on product R&D is high. Because defenders typically locate and maintain a secure niche in a relatively stable product or service area, they tend to be less interested in developing new products and technologies and therefore will depend less on technical capabilities. Formally, H2: Along the prospectors–analyzers–defenders continuum, prospectors have the greatest relative technical capabilities, and defenders have the least.Marketing capabilities include knowledge of the competition and of customers and skill in segmenting and targeting markets, in advertising and pricing, and in integrating marketing activity. Conant, Mokwa, and Varadaraj an (1990) find that prospector firms have distinctive competencies in marketing planning, allocation of marketing resources, revenue forecasting, and control of marketing activities. However, although both prospectors and defenders require skills in Technical Capabilities Marketing Capabilities 10 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto arketing and market research to succeed (Song and Parry 1997a, b), certain marketing capabilities will be of most importance to defender firms because they are most concerned about protecting products and retaining customers (McDaniel and Kolari 1987). Walker and colleagues (2003) note that differentiated defenders must be able to communicate their products’ unique advantages so as to sustain customer satisfaction and loyalty. Low-cost defenders must be able to standardize effective marketing programs across all customer segments so as to reduce overall marketing costs.Thus, because both differentiated and low-cost defenders rely on marketing capabilities, they should develop them to a greater degree than should other strategic types. H3: Along the prospectors–analyzers–defenders continuum, prospectors have the lowest relative marketing capabilities, and defenders have the greatest. A firm active in product development must be able to gather technical and market information effectively and disseminate it throughout the organization (Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990).These IT capabilities facilitate internal communication and cross-functional integration (Song et al. 2007). Better IT is associated with greater strategic flexibility and, ultimately, with better performance and greater organizational success (Bharadwaj, Bharadwaj, and Konsynski 1999; Swanson 1994). Day (1994) notes that more creative use of IT should lead to better firm performance, and other researchers have found that better information transmission across functional areas leads to m ore successful new products (Griffin and Hauser 1992, 1993, 1996; Gupta, Raj, and Wilemon 1986; Moenaert and Souder 1996).As we discussed previously, prospectors typically operate within a broad product-market domain that undergoes periodic redefinition. They also rely on the rapid development of new products and new markets (Robinson, Fornell, and Sullivan 1992). Therefore, prospectors need relatively high IT skills to respond rapidly to early signals involving areas of opportunity. Miles and Snow (1978) note that prospectors tend to have the most complex coordination and communication mechanisms.Because of the technologically advanced nature of the products they develop, prospectors are also more likely to encounter conflicts among marketing, R&D, engineering, and possibly other functional areas (Dyer and Song 1997, 1998; Walker et al. 2003). This makes even more critical prospectors’ ability to communicate as effectively as possible and to ensure the free flow of informati on throughout the organization. In addition, prospectors might need greater strategic flexibility than other strategic types because they must constantly monitor and target emerging technology IT CapabilitiesInformation Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 11 and product opportunities; better IT contributes to greater strategic flexibility (Bharadwaj, Bharadwaj, and Konsynski 1999). Formally, we propose the following: H4: Along the prospectors–analyzers–defenders continuum, prospectors have the greatest relative IT capabilities, and defenders have the lowest. CROSS-NATIONAL HYPOTHESES The cultural differences among Japan, China, and the United States are well documented in the literature (Hofstede 1980; Tse et al. 1988). Japanese and Chinese cultures are collectivistic and long-term oriented, whereas the U.S. culture is individualistic and short-term oriented. Japan and China emphasize group harmony and cohesiveness, whereas the United States values freedom of c hoice and competition (Hofstede 1980). The business environments in both Japan and China reflect these cultural tendencies. In Japan, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) encourages investment in key technologies and fierce competition among Japanese firms in selected industries (Kagono et al. 1985). These policies have helped strengthen Japan’s competitiveness in the global marketplace. In addition, METI’s olicies have recently encouraged new initiatives, such as growth in IT and support for environmentally friendly products (Elder 2000). The keiretsu, or interorganizational business groups, also strongly support technology development in Japan (Lai 1999; Lincoln, Gerlach, and Ahmadjian 1996; Miwa and Ramseyer 2002). A major manufacturer might work cooperatively with its suppliers and distributors (vertical keiretsu) or with other manufacturers (horizontal keiretsu) to perfect a new technology; consider, for example, the consortium of Japanese firms tha t worked with Sony in the development of the global positioning system (Campbell 1999).In addition to technology and IT capabilities, Japanese firms in many industries possess formidable marketing and marketlinking capabilities. Their cultural predilection toward group harmony and cohesiveness has led Japanese firms to value long-term relationships with their suppliers, distributors, and customers (Kagono et al. 1985; Kotabe et al. 1991; Smith, Peterson, and Wang 1996; Tse et al. 1988). These relationships enable Japanese manufacturers to link with their customer markets effectively and to develop appropriate marketing strategies and programs.Since the end of World War II, Japanese firms have closed the gap between themselves and their U. S. competitors in terms of marketing capabilities, in some industries surpassing them. As an example, Japanese carmakers are renowned for their excellence in customer research. Use of observational research techniques has enabled Toyota, Nissan, an d Honda to develop cars that are 12 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto ideally suited to the unique demands of the U. S. marketplace (Shirouzu 2001).Japanese carmakers were also among the first to use Quality Function Deployment techniques (e. g. , the House of Quality; see Hauser and Clausing 1988), which ensure that market needs drive all the subsequent steps in product development and manufacturing processes, including product engineering, process planning, and production (Griffin 1992). It was the U. S. carmakers that had to learn these techniques from Japanese carmakers to catch up (Dyer 1996). This literature suggests that Japanese firms are at least equal to their U. S. ompetitors in terms of marketing capabilities and, because of their cultural tendency toward group harmony and cohesiveness, could possess even stronger market-linking capabilities. The Chinese business environment differs from that of Japan, though the two countries share some cultural traits. Despite recent economic reforms, many Chinese firms remain state-owned enterprises, characterized by shared government and firm authority (Schermerhorn and Nyaw 1991). Since the 1970s, investment in technology and innovation has been supported strongly by government policy to stimulate Chinese economic growth and to boost global competitiveness.As decentralization has occurred, stateowned enterprises have increased their decision-making authority on issues such as products and prices (Henley and Nyaw 1986; Laaksonen 1988; Schermerhorn and Nyaw 1991), and smaller collective enterprises with even less government control have become more prevalent (Parry and Song 1994). Nevertheless, Chinese government policy continues to prioritize technology capability investment. However, our review of the literature on Chinese state-owned enterprises reveals little evidence that the Chinese government has prioritized or funded marketing, market-linking, or IT capabilities.In summary, the l iterature suggests that Japanese government and keiretsu policy favor technology and IT capability development, whereas Chinese government policy favors technology development. In addition, the marketing and marketlinking capabilities of Japanese firms are well established, whereas Chinese governmental policy has not supported the development of these capabilities On the basis of this evidence, we propose the following: H5: Japanese firms have greater market-linking capabilities than U. S. and Chinese firms of the same strategic type.H6: Japanese and Chinese firms have greater technology capabilities than U. S. firms of the same strategic type. Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 13 H7: Japanese and U. S. firms have greater marketing capabilities than Chinese firms of the same strategic type. H8: Japanese firms have greater IT capabilities than U. S. firms of the same strategic type. Note that H5–H8 can be tested for each of the four strategic types separa tely—thus the qualifier â€Å"of the same strategic type. † RESEARCH DESIGNInstrument Development and Cross-Cultural Validation Process Our constructs are defined using competitive capability theory (Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990; Day 1994) and must be operationalized using valid, reliable measures (Churchill 1979). We used a four-step instrument development procedure to develop new scales for market-linking, technical, marketing, and IT capabilities and to ensure crosscultural validity. (For a fuller discussion of the instrument development procedure, see DeSarbo et al. 2005. ) Step 1: Measurement Items for Each Capability Type.We identified relevant measurement scales from the marketing literature. We grouped the scale items derived from these scales into the four capability types. To this initial pool of items for each capability type, we added new items in instances in which we believed that not all the dimensions of the construct had been sufficiently covere d. To ensure content validity and appropriateness of items, we refined the scales through in-depth focus interviews in two SBUs. Managers at these SBUs were asked their opinions about salient issues in SBU capabilities.They were also asked to evaluate whether the theoretical model described their own experiences adequately. Next, managers commented on their perceptions of the relevance and completeness of the scale items drawn from the literature review and previous case studies. Finally, we tested and validated the Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan (1990) strategic typology scale. Step 2: Scale Development. Following Churchill (1979), we assessed construct validity of the scales being developed and corrected any scale items that might still be ambiguous.Seven judges (two professors and five doctoral students with background in measurement development) sorted the items from the first step into the four capability scales, following Davis’s (1986) procedure. Construct convergence and divergence were examined by assessing interrater reliability (for assessment statistics, see DeSarbo et al. 2005). Step 3: Instrument Pretesting. Using the judges’ comments, we reexamined all scale items and eliminated inappropriate or ambiguous items or any that were inconsistently classified.We then combined the four scales into an overall instrument 14 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto for additional pretesting. We distributed the instrument to 32 managers in the two SBUs to further assess scale reliability and validity; two problematic items were deleted. Then, the instrument was distributed to 41 executive MBA students taking a new product development class. We subjected the results to factor analysis and assessment of reliability. (Factor loadings and reliability test results are available on request. We deleted two more items, which resulted in a questionnaire including all items judged to have high consistency and face validity. Step 4: Cr oss-Cultural Validation of the Research Instrument. To ensure that the translation was accurate and that the question meanings were not altered, we used a double-translation method to translate the questionnaire into Japanese and Chinese (Adler 1983; Douglas and Craig 2006; Sekaran 1983). After translation, we conducted field research in six Japanese firms and two Chinese firms in which we examined SBU capabilities and innovation strategies.The purposes of the field research were to establish the content validity of the concepts and the hypothesized relationships among the constructs; to establish equivalence of the constructs, concepts, measures, and samples; and to assess the possibility of cultural bias and response format bias (Douglas and Craig 2006). The field research studies were conducted over a ninemonth period with multiple visits to the companies. The field research studies were important for several reasons. First, they facilitated an assessment of construct (conceptual , functional, and category) equivalence.Second, they indicated that the measurement scales were appropriate for studying capability and strategic types in Japanese and Chinese context. Third, the field research results suggested that it is more appropriate to ask the respondents to rate their SBU on each of the capability scale items relative to their major competitors (for exact wording, see Appendix A). Appendix A provides a list of the final measure measurement items and the response format employed in the questionnaire. The following sections briefly summarize the four scales.Market-Linking Capabilities. We measured market-linking capabilities using several scale items derived from Day (1994). The items measure relative capability in creating and managing durable customer relationships, creating durable relationships with suppliers, retaining customers, and bonding with channel members. Technical Capabilities. We also measured technical capabilities according to a set of scale i tems derived from Day (1994). These items measure relative capabilities in the prediction ofInformation Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 15 technological change, technology and new product development, manufacturing processes, and production facilities. Marketing Capabilities. We measured marketing capabilities using a set of scale items derived from Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan (1990). These items measure knowledge of customers, knowledge of competitors, integration of marketing activities, skills in segmentation and targeting, and effectiveness of pricing and advertising programs. IT Capabilities.We defined IT capabilities as the relative capabilities that help an organization create technical and market knowledge and facilitate intraorganizational communication flow. We developed items to measure the possession of IT systems for new product development, cross-functional integration, technology and market knowledge creation, and internal communication. We subjected th ese items to the measurement development procedure described previously. We obtained the data from a large-scale mail survey of the companies listed in Ward’s Business Directory, the Directory of Corporate Affiliations, and the World Marketing Directory.We drew a proportionate-stratified random sample of 800 firms from each country, using each industry as a stratum. The data collection consisted of three stages: presurvey, data collection on SBU strategies, and data collection on relative capabilities. In the first stage, we sent a one-page survey and an introductory letter requesting participation to all the selected firms and offered a list of available research reports to participating firms. The letter requested each firm to select an SBU/division for participation and provide a contact person in that SBU/division.Of the 2400 firms contacted, 392 in the United States, 429 in Japan, and 414 in China agreed to participate and provided the necessary contacts at the SBU/divis ion level. In the second stage, on strategic types, we contacted the designated SBU managers directly and mailed a questionnaire and personalized letter to each manager. We employed a three-wave mailing on the basis of the recommendations of Dillman (1978). We received data on the multi-item measures of the strategic types from 308 firms in the United States, 354 firms in Japan, and 352 firms in China.Two items at the end of the instrument assessed respondents’ confidence in their ability to answer the questions. Respondents with a low level of confidence (less than 6) were excluded from the final sample. In the third stage, on the four capabilities, we sent another questionnaire to the SBU managers, followed again by a three-wave mailing. This time, we received data on the rela- Data 16 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto tive capabilities from 216 U. S. firms, 248 Japanese firms, and 245 Chinese firms.These sample sizes represent response rates of 27. 0% in the United States, 31. 0% in Japan, and 30. 6% in China. The final sample includes the following industries: computer-related products; electronics; electric equipment and household appliances; pharmaceuticals, drugs, and medicines; machinery; telecommunications equipment; instruments and related products; air conditioning; chemicals and related products; and transportation equipment. The majority of participating SBUs/divisions had annual sales of $11 million–$750 million and 100–12,500 employees.Appendix A presents all of the measures used in this study. We asked respondents to rate their SBU on each of the capability scale items relative to their major competitors. We used an 11-point scale to elicit levels of agreement, with values ranging from 0 (â€Å"much worse than our competitors†) to 10 (â€Å"much better than our competitors†). We used the data collected in the second phase of the collection process to classify the SBU/division into the four strategic types. We adopted the 11-item scale from Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan (1990).We classified the SBU’s strategic type (prospector, analyzer, defender, or reactor) using the â€Å"majority-rule decision structure† (for details, see Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan 1990) with the following modification: For an SBU to be classified as a prospector or a defender, it must have at least seven â€Å"correct† answers. Before testing our hypotheses, we performed principal factor analyses with Varimax rotation on all the variables measuring the four relative capabilities for all three countries. To assess measurement invariance, we examined factor structure similarity (Mullen 1995).We retained variables using the following criteria: (1) Each factor must contain the same scale items across all three countries, (2) each item’s factor loading must be comparable across all three countries, and (3) for each factor, the factor loading must exceed . 40. This procedure produced four factors and reduced the total number of variables to 21. We made comparisons among the factor structures of the three countries using visual inspection, the salient similarity index, and Pearson correlation of the factor loadings across the three countries. The factor loadings appear in Table 1.As indicated, all factors are distinguishable and well defined for all three countries. The percentage of the variance explained by the four factors is 72% for the United States, 71% for Japan, and 69% for China. The examination of the diagonal of the factor score covariance matrix indicates that all factors for the three Measures ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Factor Analysis of the Capability Scales Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 17 Table 1. Principal Component Factor Analysis: Rotated Factor Patterns United States Market-Linking Capabilities Market-sensing capabilities Customer-linking (i. e. creating and managing durable customer relationships) capab ilities Capabilities of creating durable relationships with our suppliers Ability to retain customers Channel-bonding capabilities (creating durable relationships with channel members such as wholesalers, retailers) Eigenvalue of this factor % variance explained by this factor Technical Capabilities Manufacturing processes Technology development capabilities Ability of predicting technological changes in the industry Production facilities New product development capabilities Eigenvalue of this factor % variance explained by this factor Marketing Capabilities Knowledge of competitors Effectiveness of advertising programs Integration of marketing activities Skill to segment and target markets Effectiveness of pricing programs Knowledge of customers Eigenvalue of this factor % variance explained by this factor IT Capabilities IT systems for facilitating crossfunctional integration IT systems for new product development projects IT systems for internal communication (e. g. , across diff erent departments, levels of the organization) IT systems for facilitating technology knowledge creation IT systems for facilitating market knowledge creation Eigenvalue of this factor % variance explained by this factor . 71 . 80 . 90 . 58 . 86 . 85 . 62 . 89 4. 22 20. 1 . 97 . 93 . 90 . 92 . 91 6. 10 29. 1 . 85 Japan .81 China .88 .80 . 81 . 79 .77 . 71 . 57 .79 . 66 . 70 .65 3. 04 14. 4 .44 1. 68 8. 0 .67 2. 64 12. 6 .79 . 78 . 78 . 77 . 71 2. 51 12. 0 70 . 81 . 69 . 73 . 78 4. 36 20. 7 .95 . 95 . 94 . 95 . 90 . 86 5. 69 27. 1 .95 . 86 . 94 . 93 . 83 . 83 5. 39 25. 7 .90 . 89 .83 . 80 .75 . 66 . 74 1. 66 7. 9 .85 . 65 . 57 5. 08 24. 2 .46 . 67 . 63 1. 75 8. 3 18 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto countries are internally consistent and well defined by the measurement items. We provide the final set of included measurement items in Appendix A and the construct reliabilities (as measured by Cronbach’s ? ) and item-to-total correlations in Appendix B. All 12 construct reliabilities (three countries ? four constructs) exceeded the . 70 level that Peter (1979) recommends.To test H1–H4 in each of the three country settings, we performed multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) to compare the scores on each of the four multi-item relative capability scales across all four strategic types using SAS general linear model procedure. For each capability scale, we obtained a multiple-item scale by a simple average of the items. As Table 2 shows, the MANOVA F-statistic was significant for all four relative capabilities and in all three countries, so we computed pairwise comparisons to examine the nature of the differences in relative capabilities among the four strategic types. We also include the t-test results of the pairwise comparisons in Table 2.The results in Table 2 provide support for H1–H4 in all three countries. (A hypothesis is supported if at least one pairwise comparison is significant and the direction is in t he hypothesized direction. ) As H1 hypothesized, the relative marketlinking capabilities of defenders and analyzers are significantly greater than those of prospectors in all three countries, though the difference between defenders and analyzers is not significant. For example, in the United States, mean scores on market-linking capabilities are 2. 69, 2. 35, and 1. 67 for defenders, analyzers, and prospectors, respectively. The F-statistic from the analysis of variance is 3. 52, which is significant at p < . 05.T-tests of the paired comparisons showed that both the defender mean and the analyzer mean were significantly larger than the prospector mean (D > P; A > P) at the p < . 05 level. We obtained similar results for the Japanese and Chinese samples. These findings are consistent with H1. Prospectors have lower market-linking capabilities than defenders and analyzers because the latter two strategic types rely primarily on their market-sensing and -linking abilities to serve thei r current markets with their current products and technologies. The results also support H2 (prospectors have greater technical capabilities than defenders) in all three countries.For the United States, the prospector and defender means were 3. 42 and 2. 25, respectively, significantly different at p < . 05. Both prospectors’ and analyzers’ technical capabilities are greater than those of defenders in Japan. The means for prospector, analyzer, and defender were 8. 75, 8. 47, and 7. 84, respectively; both prospector and analyzer means were significantly Tests of H1–H4: Possession of Capabilities by Different Strategic Types Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 19 20 Table 2. Analysis of Variance Results: Relative Capabilities and Strategic Types Strategic Type Prospector 1. 67 (1. 67) 3. 42 (2. 70) 1. 75 (1. 50) 7. 5 (1. 49) 6. 72 (1. 79) 5. 48 (1. 09) 5. 05 (1. 72) 2. 37 (1. 75) 3. 26 (1. 99) 1. 98 (2. 38) 2. 78 (2. 46) 2. 25 (2. 59) 2. 46 (2. 90) 2. 16* 7. 47** 31. 96** 2. 35 (1. 82) 2. 69 (1. 79) 2. 46 (2. 01) 3. 52** Univariate Defender Reactor F-Value Paired Comparisons Hypothesis (t-Tests)a D > P; A > P P>D D > A; D > P; D > R; A > P P > A; P > D; P > R; A > D; A > R Countries/Relative Capabilities Analyzer Supportedb Yes Yes Yes Yes United States Market-linking capabilities Technical capabilities Marketing capabilities IT capabilities Japan 1. 03 (. 91) 8. 75 (1. 23) 3. 58 (2. 36) 9. 48 (. 87) 9. 00 (1. 01) 3. 9 (2. 88) 8. 47 (1. 20) 7. 84 (1. 35) 3. 68 (2. 73) 8. 72 (1. 09) 1. 96 (1. 12) 2. 07 (1. 19) 2. 51 (1. 56) 7. 42 (1. 42) 4. 82 (2. 29) 8. 46 (1. 28) 19. 17** 12. 02** 2. 24* 11. 28** D > P; A > P; R > D; R > A; R > P P > D; P > R; A > D; A > R R > D; R > A; R > P P > A; P > D; P > R; A > R Yes Yes No Yes Market-linking capabilities Technical capabilities Marketing capabilities Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto IT capabilities Strategic Type Prospector 1. 21 (1. 28) 8. 53 (1. 27) 2. 9 2 (2. 20) 8. 96 (1. 10) 8. 58 (1. 13) 7. 94 (1. 33) 7. 59 (1. 60) 13. 38** 3. 37 (2. 52) 3. 9 (2. 82) 4. 13 (2. 45) 2. 30* 7. 81 (1. 28) 7. 43 (1. 19) 6. 79 (1. 85) 15. 69** 2. 17 (1. 52) 2. 22 (1. 49) 2. 71 (1. 74) 11. 21** Univariate Defender Reactor F-Value Paired Comparisons Hypothesis (t-Tests)a D > P; A > P; R > A; R > P P > A; P > D; P > R; A > R; D > R D > P; R > P P > A; P > D; P > R; A > D; A > R Countries/Relative Capabilities Analyzer Supportedb Yes Yes Yes Yes China Market-linking capabilities Technical capabilities Marketing capabilities IT capabilities Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types *p < . 10. **p < . 05. aSignificant differences at p < . 0 are reported. bA hypothesis is supported if at least one pair is significantly different in the hypothesized direction. Notes: Each cell shows the mean; standard deviations are in parentheses. P = prospector, A = analyzer, D = defender, and R = reactor. Table 2. Continued 21 higher than the defender mean at p < . 05. In China, prospectors scored higher than analyzers and defenders on this capability (prospector, analyzer, and defender means were 8. 53, 7. 81, and 7. 43, respectively; the prospector mean was significantly higher than the other two means at p < . 05). H3 was supported in the United States and China samples. For the U. S. ample, defenders had significantly greater marketing capabilities than analyzers, and analyzers had significantly greater marketing capabilities than prospectors. The defender, analyzer, and prospector means on relative marketing capabilities in the United States were 3. 26, 2. 37, and 1. 75, respectively, all significantly different from one another at p < . 05 according to the pairwise t-tests. For the Chinese sample, the only differences are the pair between defenders and prospectors and the pair between reactors and prospectors. However, for the Japanese samples, the hypothesis was not supported. The three â€Å"archetypal† strategic types we re insignificantly different and, notably, rather low.The reactors had significantly greater marketing capabilities than all other three strategic types. Finally, H4 was also supported in all three countries. Almost without exception, prospectors had greater IT capabilities than analyzers, which in turn had greater IT capabilities than defenders. For example, in the U. S. sample, the relative IT capabilities for prospectors, analyzers, and defenders were 7. 95, 6. 72, and 5. 48, respectively, all significantly different from one another at p < . 05. Similar results were found in Japan and China. In summary, our expectations, expressed in our hypotheses, were that prospectors would be strongest in technical and IT capabilities and defenders in market-linking and marketing capabilities.We find support for all these hypotheses in all three countries, and all significant findings were in the hypothesized directions. The next set of hypotheses involves expected cross-national differences in terms of the relationship between capabilities and strategic types due to cultural or business environment differences. Before discussing the direct empirical testing of these hypotheses, however, we explain some preliminary findings regarding cross-national differences using data from Table 2. Market-Linking Capabilities. Reactors had significantly greater relative market-linking capabilities than did other strategic types in both Japan and China, but not in the United States. Market-linking capability = 2. 51 and 2. 71 in Japan and China, respectively; in each case, this is the highest capability mean. ) Miles and Snow (1978) find that reactors Tests of H5–H8: Cross-National Similarities and Differences 22 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto did not implement strategies consistently and therefore did not fully develop internal capabilities that would enable them to compete successfully. Our results suggest that this expectation is not borne out in Japan or China, possibly because some firms in these countries have well-developed market-linking capabilities but choose to compete as reactors rather than defenders.That is, superior market-sensing skills enable these firms to act successfully as prospectors in certain markets and as adapters or defenders in others. This finding appears to be supported by the H3 results, at least for Japanese firms. Reactors in Japan have significantly greater relative marketing capabilities than all other strategic types. Leaders of a multinational organization doing business against a Japanese competitor should keep in mind that a firm apparently lacking a consistent strategy (i. e. , displaying reactive behavior) may be nonetheless highly skilled in marketing and market linking and, therefore, a surprisingly formidable opponent. Technical Capabilities.Although H2 was largely supported, it is worthwhile to note that across all four strategic types, managers from U. S. firms rated their technica l capabilities (relative to competitors) substantially lower than did their Japanese or Chinese counterparts. The means for the United States were 2. 2–3. 4 on a ten-point scale, and comparable means in Japan and China were 7–9. This finding suggests that in Japan and China, all strategic types (including defenders and reactors) have well-developed relative technical capabilities. Again, a U. S. firm in competition against, for example, a Japanese defender should not infer low technical capabilities from its competitor’s defensive posture. Marketing Capabilities.Finally, it was surprising to note that H3, which involves relative marketing capabilities, was not supported in Japan and only partially supported in China. As we noted previously, Japanese reactor firms have the greatest relative marketing capabilities; all other firms are insignificantly different on this capability. In China, defenders rate significantly higher than prospectors in this (as hypothesiz ed), but we found no other significant differences among the archetypal strategic types. Cross-National Differences. To test the cross-national hypotheses (H5–H8), we performed additional analyses to compare the means on each relative capability construct across countries for each of the four strategic types using SAS general linear model procedure.We used the same procedure described previously: a MANOVA followed by a series of pairwise t-tests to identify significant differences. As Table 3 shows, the F-statistic was significant for 13 of the 16 possible comparisons. Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 23 Consider first the technology and IT capability hypotheses (H6 and H8). Table 3 shows that across all four strategic types, Japanese and Chinese SBUs rate significantly higher than U. S. SBUs in relative technical capabilities. As an example, technical capabilities for prospectors were rated as 8. 75, 8. 53, and 3. 42 for Japan, China, and the United St ates, respectively (significant at p < . 05).This is directly supportive of H6. Japanese and Chinese SBUs also rated significantly higher than their U. S. counterparts in relative IT capabilities across all four strategic types; therefore, we find only partial support for H8. For prospectors, IT capabilities were 9. 48, 8. 96, and 7. 95 for Japan, China, and the United States, respectively (significant at p < . 05). High relative IT capability among Japanese SBUs was expected according to H8, but the high relative IT capability among Chinese SBUs was unanticipated and is worthy of further research. We found less support for the market-linking and marketing capability hypotheses (H5 and H7).Cross-national differences are not very pronounced in the case of relative marketlinking capabilities. As Table 3 shows, U. S. prospector SBUs rate significantly higher than their Japanese and Chinese counterparts, and U. S. defenders rate significantly higher than their Japanese counterparts. The se findings are contradictory to the expectations of H5. Given the evidence of Japanese market-linking expertise, it is surprising that Japanese SBUs rate significantly higher than U. S. or Chinese competitors in market linking only in the case of reactors. In addition, H7 is only partially supported. Japanese and Chinese prospectors and analyzers rate significantly higher than their U. S. ounterparts on relative marketing capabilities. For example, in the case of prospectors, marketing capabilities are rated as 4. 58, 2. 92, and 1. 75 for Japan, China, and the United States, respectively (significant at p < . 05). Although we expected high relative marketing capability for Japan, we did not expect the significantly lower marketing capabilities among U. S. SBUs. Nevertheless, consistent patterns appear with respect to the cross-national hypotheses and suggest directions for further research. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION According to the Miles and Snow (1978) typology, organizations ado pt certain mechanisms to respond to environmental changes.That is, they choose to be pioneers in product or market development or to protect existing positions within their niches, or they seek some kind of intermediate position between these two extremes. As a result, firms exhibit relatively consistent strategies, or patterns of product-market innovation decisions, in response to environmental shifts. Furthermore, a firm that pursues a given strategy develops certain capabilities that help it implement that strategy, thus increasing the likelihood that it will continue to use the same strategy in response to future environmental shifts. As Ham- 24 Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di BenedettoStrategic Types/ Relative Capabilities United States 1. 67 3. 42 1. 75 7. 95 9. 48 8. 96 33. 14** 3. 58 2. 92 13. 91** 8. 75 8. 53 202. 00** 1. 03 1. 21 4. 74** Country Japan China Univariate F-Value Cross-Country Comparisonsa U. S. > China; U. S. > Japan Japan > U. S. ; China > U . S. Japan > China; Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. Japan > China; Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. Prospectors Market-linking capabilities Technical capabilities Marketing capabilities IT capabilities Analyzers 2. 35 2. 78 2. 37 6. 72 9. 00 8. 58 3. 59 3. 37 8. 47 7. 81 230. 38** 5. 46** 58. 07** 1. 96 2. 17 1. 16n. s. — Japan > China; Japan > U. S. China > U. S. Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. Japan > China; Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. Market-linking capabilities Technical capabilities Marketing capabilities IT capabilities Defenders 2. 69 2. 25 3. 26 5. 48 8. 72 3. 68 3. 69 7. 94 7. 84 7. 43 2. 07 2. 22 2. 70* 163. 99** . 54n. s. 121. 94** U. S. > Japan Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. — Japan > China; Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. Market-linking capabilities Technical capabilities Marketing capabilities Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types IT capabilities Table 3. Analysis of Variance Results: Cross-National Comparisons 25 26 Table 3.Continued Country Un ited States 2. 46 2. 46 1. 98 5. 05 8. 46 7. 59 4. 81 4. 13 7. 42 6. 79 2. 51 2. 71 . 17n. s. 38. 68** 7. 99** 28. 82** Strategic Types/ Relative Capabilities Japan China Univariate F-Value Cross-Country Comparisonsa Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. — Japan > China; Japan > U. S. ; China > U. S. Reactors Market-linking capabilities Technical capabilities Marketing capabilities IT capabilities Michael Song, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto *p < . 10. **p < . 05. aSignificant differences at p < . 10 are reported. Notes: n. s. = not significant. brick (1983, p. ) notes, â€Å"prospectors tend to want to continue prospecting; defenders tend to want to continue defending. † Among the capabilities Miles and Snow investigate are technology, structure, management processes, and power distribution. As we noted previously, the Miles and Snow (1978) typology is, above all, a typology of innovation strategies. In this study, we mapped four ca pabilities of interest to innovating firms (market-linking, technical, marketing, and IT capabilities) onto the Miles and Snow strategic typologies. We hypothesized (in H1–H4) that prospectors, which typically pursue a first-mover strategy through product-market innovation, would need to build up technical and IT capabilities.Similarly, defenders, which are most concerned with preserving protected market segments with existing technology, must develop market-linking and marketing capabilities. We found supporting evidence for all these hypotheses in firms from all three countries. We then developed and tested a set of cross-national hypotheses (H5–H8), based on cultural and business environment differences existing among the United States, Japan, and China. Our development and empirical testing of these hypotheses represent a significant advance of the literature beyond the contributions of DeSarbo and colleagues (2005, 2006). We found clear support for one of the four hypotheses (H6), partial support for two others (H7 and H8), and no support for the last (H5).In general, the cultural and business environment prevalent in Japan and China has given SBUs in those countries relative advantages in technology and IT capabilities (H6 and H8), yet we did not observe anticipated advantages in market-linking and marketing capabilities (H5 and H7). This study has some implications for theory development and further research. In general, the results support the hypotheses that relative to other organizations, prospectors develop greater technical and IT capabilities so that they can pursue first-to-market initiatives and that defenders develop greater market-linking and marketing capabilities so that they can respond effectively to marketplace changes.These findings lend support to the Miles and Snow (1978) typology and to the contention that organizations tend to respond in certain, consistent ways to environmental change. Therefore, our findings can be i nterpreted as further empirical support of the Miles and Snow typology, originally conceived after an exploratory study of a limited number of industries but empirically supported in other settings (Hambrick 2003). Our findings are also consistent with Hambrick’s (1983) contention that prospectors want to keep prospecting and consequently develop the capabilities most closely related to Information Technology Capabilities and Strategic Types 27 prospecting more than do other firms. Because IT has evolved only in the past few years, further research should explore the impact of IT on strategic choices.Because no existing theories are sufficient to enable us to predict a priori the nature of cross-national differences in the relationship between the four capabilities and strategic types, further research also should examine further our preliminary results regarding cross-national differences in relative capabilities. In addition, note that our model provides evidence of the val idity of Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan’s (1990) 11-item scale for assessing strategic type in both Japan and China. We believe that this is the first application of this scale in China and one of the first in Japan (for an earlier Japanese application, see Dyer and Song 1997). There are several notable managerial implications. The Miles and Snow (1978) typology suggests that organizations must do a sincere internal and external assessment when planning strategic moves for future competition.The external assessment should include analysis not only of likely opportunities or developments in product, market, and technology but also of past moves by primary competitors classified by strategic type. In the internal assessment, the organization’s leaders must identify honestly the firm’s strengths and recognize its weaknesses in light of external challenges. They must then choose a strategic stance, deciding how it can best capitalize on the strengths and overcome th e weaknesses. Although this recommendation is hardly new, it is important in this context to recognize that there is a mutually complementary relationship between capabilities and strategies.Relative strengths in technology and IT capabilities might suggest that a prospector (or even an analyzer) strategy could be a more appropriate choice than a defender strategy. Consistent, successful pursuit of a prospector strategy over time should help a firm develop these relative strengths and enable it to retain its competitive advantage. This implicitly suggests also that a firm that recognizes itself as a reactor type should use its internal assessment to decide which â€Å"archetypal† strategic type it should strive to become. Cross-national differences in strategic type also carry managerial implications. Previously, we noted several

5 Cases of Extraneous Hyphenation

5 Cases of Extraneous Hyphenation 5 Cases of Extraneous Hyphenation 5 Cases of Extraneous Hyphenation By Mark Nichol Hyphens are used primarily to organize two or more words into phrases to aid in reading comprehension. Although errors in the use of hyphens are usually errors of omission, erroneous overuse is also common. Beware of superfluous use of hyphens in sentences such as the ones shown below. 1. The answer is to find a silver-bullet that will wean us from fossil fuels. Hyphenated compound nouns used to be common, but most have become closed compounds. Some exceptions persist or have been coined relatively recently (dry-cleaning, go-getter, light-year, well-being), but â€Å"silver bullet,† meaning â€Å"a simple solution to a complicated problem,† is not one of them: â€Å"The answer is to find a silver bullet that will wean us from fossil fuels.† 2. She found herself routinely all-but-ignoring such comments. Here, all and but modify the verb ignoring, and the phrase needs no hyphenation: â€Å"She found herself routinely all but ignoring such comments.† 3. The company reported a $10-million deficit. Hyphens are not necessary in a phrasal adjective consisting of a numeral and a term for an order of magnitude such as million: â€Å"The company reported a $10 million deficit.† (However, when a number is spelled out and combined with million or a similar term, do hyphenate the phrasal adjective: â€Å"The company reported a ten-million-dollar deficit.†) 4. Hard work must be balanced with a feeling of fun, fellowship, and esprit-de-corps. Native and adopted noun phrases (with rare exceptions such as pick-me-up and tà ªtetà ªte) do not require hyphens: â€Å"Hard work must be balanced with a feeling of fun, fellowship, and esprit de corps.† 5. Roughly two-dozen students stood up at the meeting of the school board to protest the decision. Do not link a spelled-out number with dozen to describe a multiple of twelve: â€Å"Roughly two dozen students stood up at the meeting of the school board to protest the decision.† (However, when using a spelled-out number with score to mean â€Å"a multiple of twenty,† treat the term as a closed compound, as with fourscore.) Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Punctuation category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Dialogue Dos and Don'tsThe Possessive ApostropheUses of the Past Participle

Is the ACT Curved Expert Guide to the ACT Curve

Is the ACT Curved Expert Guide to the ACT Curve SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips Whether you've already taken the ACT or are busy preparing for it now,you've likelywondered at some point: isthe ACT curved? Does a 32 on one ACTequal a 32 on another? In this article, we’ll investigate the rumor of the ACT curve andexplain what it really means. Then we'll examine the function of this curve as well as how it's changedover time, before finally explaining what the ACT curve means for test takersand how you can use it to your advantage. Is the ACT Curved? Contrary to popular belief, there is no ACT curve. This means that how well other test takersdo on the ACT willnot affect your ACT score. Even if everyone who took the ACT on a particulartest date were to receive lowscores, none of these scores would be raised or redistributed to establish a more balanced ACT bell curve. In short,your ACT score will always be the exact score you earn on the test- itwill never increase nor decrease as a result ofother test takers' performances. So how does ACT scoring actually work, then? The test's creators,ACT, Inc.,account for variations in difficulty across test dates througha special processcalled equating. This process ensures that scale ACT scores from different administrations of the test always indicate the same level of ability, regardless of when or with whom you take the ACT. Here's howACT, Inc., describesequating: â€Å"Statistical processes, referred to as ‘equating,’ are used to ensure that scores from the same test (e.g., ACT math, ACT English) are comparable across administrations and students, so there is no advantage in taking a test in one administration (e.g., October 2015) over another administration* (e.g., May 2013).† *Emphasis mine. Basically,there's no such thing as an easier or harder ACT test date. ACTs are equated so that your chance of getting a certain scale score is the same for all administrations. This means thata Math score of 28 on one ACT will always equal a Math score of 28 on anotherACT, even if one test contains hardermath questions. So despite what the rumors may claim, there is no "best" time to take the ACTbecause when and with whom you take the ACTis ultimately irrelevant. In truth, neither factoraffectsyour chance of hitting your ACT goal scoreon test day! Even if you were surrounded by Albert Einsteins, their ACT scores still wouldn't affect yours! How Does the ACT â€Å"Curve† Work? Before we delve into the ACT curve,let's take a moment to review the ACT scoring system. The ACT comprises four subject areas: English, Math, Reading, and Science. (There is also a fifth optional Writing section.) Each of the four major sections is assigned a scale score on a scale of 1-36. These four scale scores are then averaged together to give you a composite ACT score out of 36. (This composite score does not include the ACT Writing score.) So how does ACT, Inc.,calculate these scale scores? For each section, you’ll begin with a raw score, which isequivalent to the number of questions you answered correctly. (Note that there are no penalties for incorrect or blank answers.) So ifyou answered 60 out of 75 questions correctly on the English section, your raw English score would be 60. Afterward, each raw score is then converted into a scale score out of 36. But here’s the kicker: how a raw score converts into a scale score varies with each administration of the ACT. This is because each ACT differs slightly in content and difficulty; thus, each test must use a unique equating formula to determinehow its raw scores will translate into scale scores. Unfortunately, this means there's no way for us to know for sure how a raw score will convert into a scale score on an upcoming ACT. That being said, we canestimatehow raw scores may convert into scale scores using score conversion charts fromofficial ACT practice tests. All of these practice tests are based on former ACTs that were actually administered, so the equating processes they employ are guaranteed to be most similar to those used for upcoming administrations. Below are the scoring tables for the2014-15and2016-17ACT practice tests. These tables will show us how raw scores vary in the scale scores into which they convert. 2014-15 ACT Score Conversion Table Scale Score Raw Scores Scale Score English Math Reading Science 36 75 59-60 40 40 36 35 73-74 57-58 39 39 35 34 71-72 55-56 38 38 34 33 70 54 - 37 33 32 69 53 37 - 32 31 68 52 36 36 31 30 67 50-51 35 35 30 29 66 49 34 34 29 28 64-65 47-48 33 33 28 27 62-63 45-46 32 31-32 27 26 60-61 43-44 31 30 26 25 58-59 41-42 30 28-29 25 24 56-57 38-40 29 26-27 24 23 53-55 36-37 27-28 24-25 23 22 51-52 34-35 26 23 22 21 48-50 33 25 21-22 21 20 45-47 31-32 23-24 19-20 20 19 42-44 29-30 22 17-18 19 18 40-41 27-28 20-21 16 18 17 38-39 24-26 19 14-15 17 16 35-37 19-23 18 13 16 15 33-34 15-18 16-17 12 15 14 30-32 12-14 14-15 11 14 13 29 10-11 13 10 13 12 27-28 8-9 11-12 9 12 11 25-26 6-7 9-10 8 11 10 23-24 5 8 7 10 9 20-22 4 7 6 9 8 17-19 - 6 5 8 7 14-16 3 5 4 7 6 11-13 - 4 3 6 5 9-10 2 3 - 5 4 6-8 - - 2 4 3 5 1 2 1 3 2 3-4 - 1 - 2 1 0-2 0 0 0 1 Now how did THIS table get in here? 2016-17 ACT Score Conversion Table Scale Score Raw Scores Scale Score English Math Reading Science 36 75 60 40 40 36 35 72-74 58-59 39 39 35 34 71 57 38 38 34 33 70 55-56 37 37 33 32 68-69 54 35-36 - 32 31 67 52-53 34 36 31 30 66 50-51 33 35 30 29 65 48-49 32 34 29 28 63-64 45-47 31 33 28 27 62 43-44 30 32 27 26 60-61 40-42 29 30-31 26 25 58-59 38-39 28 28-29 25 24 56-57 36-37 27 26-27 24 23 53-55 34-35 25-26 24-25 23 22 51-52 32-33 24 22-23 22 21 48-50 30-31 22-23 21 21 20 45-47 29 21 19-20 20 19 43-44 27-28 19-20 17-18 19 18 41-42 24-26 18 16 18 17 39-40 21-23 17 14-15 17 16 36-38 17-20 15-16 13 16 15 32-35 13-16 14 12 15 14 29-31 11-12 12-13 11 14 13 27-28 8-10 11 10 13 12 25-26 7 9-10 9 12 11 23-24 5-6 8 8 11 10 20-22 4 6-7 7 10 9 18-19 - - 5-6 9 8 15-17 3 5 - 8 7 12-14 - 4 4 7 6 10-11 2 3 3 6 5 8-9 - - 2 5 4 6-7 1 2 - 4 3 4-5 - - 1 3 2 2-3 - 1 - 2 1 0-1 0 0 0 1 Based onthe charts above, we can see that there are several variations inscore conversions. To get a scale score of 20 on Math, you’d need to answer at least 31 questions correctly on the 2014-15 test but only 29 on the 2016-17 test. This difference hintsthat the Math on the 2014-15 testisof a slightly easier difficulty than that on the 2016-17 test. Why? Becauseyou'd need to score more raw points on the 2014-15 Math section to get the same scale score on the 2016-17 Math section. We can also see that if you were to get a raw Readingscore of 28on the 2014-15 test, you’d get a scale score of 23. Buton the 2016-17 test, this same raw score would net you a noticeably higher score of 25. Once again, this relationship indicates that the 2014-15Reading section is slightly easier than the2016-17 Reading section. So what do these findings ultimatelymean for us? First off, score conversions for the ACT don't seem to vary significantly. On these two tests, most differences are fairly nominal - around two or three points at most - indicating that there likely won't beany giant discrepancies in raw score conversionsfor upcoming ACTs. Perhaps more importantly, though, we seethatyou can never knowexactly how many questions you'll need to answer correctly to geta certain scale score on the ACT. All you can do is estimate the number of correct answers you'll need using patterns in conversions for previous tests. Now, try estimating the number of books in this insanely cool book spiral. Has the ACT Curve Changed Over Time? We know that eachACT uses a different equating formula to convert raw scores into scale scores. But hasthis pattern in conversions changedover time? To answer this question, we’re going to look at the oldest and newest ACT practice tests currently available online: the 2005-06 test and the 2016-17 test. (Remember, these practice tests are based on real ACTs, so their score conversion tables should give us a general sense of how the ACT curve haschanged, if at all, over the years.) 2005-06 and 2016-17 ACT Score Conversions Scale Score Raw Scores (2005-06) Raw Scores (2016-17) Scale Score Eng Math Read Sci Eng Math Read Sci 36 75 60 40 40 75 60 40 40 36 35 74 59 39 - 72-74 58-59 39 39 35 34 73 58 38 39 71 57 38 38 34 33 72 57 - - 70 55-56 37 37 33 32 71 55-56 37 38 68-69 54 35-36 - 32 31 70 54 36 - 67 52-53 34 36 31 30 68-69 52-53 35 37 66 50-51 33 35 30 29 67 50-51 34 36 65 48-49 32 34 29 28 65-66 48-49 32-33 35 63-64 45-47 31 33 28 27 63-64 45-47 31 34 62 43-44 30 32 27 26 61-62 43-44 30 33 60-61 40-42 29 30-31 26 25 58-60 41-42 28-29 31-32 58-59 38-39 28 28-29 25 24 56-57 38-40 27 30 56-57 36-37 27 26-27 24 23 54-55 36-37 25-26 28-29 53-55 34-35 25-26 24-25 23 22 52-53 34-35 24 27 51-52 32-33 24 22-23 22 21 49-51 32-33 23 25-26 48-50 30-31 22-23 21 21 20 46-48 30-31 21-22 23-24 45-47 29 21 19-20 20 19 43-45 28-29 20 21-22 43-44 27-28 19-20 17-18 19 18 40-42 25-27 19 19-20 41-42 24-26 18 16 18 17 38-39 21-24 18 17-18 39-40 21-23 17 14-15 17 16 36-37 18-20 17 15-16 36-38 17-20 15-16 13 16 15 33-35 15-17 15-16 14 32-35 13-16 14 12 15 14 30-32 12-14 14 13 29-31 11-12 12-13 11 14 13 28-29 9-11 12-13 11-12 27-28 8-10 11 10 13 12 26-27 7-8 10-11 10 25-26 7 9-10 9 12 11 24-25 6 8-9 9 23-24 5-6 8 8 11 10 21-23 5 7 7-8 20-22 4 6-7 7 10 9 18-20 4 6 6 18-19 - - 5-6 9 8 15-17 3 5 5 15-17 3 5 - 8 7 12-14 - 4 4 12-14 - 4 4 7 6 10-11 2 - 3 10-11 2 3 3 6 5 8-9 - 3 2 8-9 - - 2 5 4 6-7 1 2 - 6-7 1 2 - 4 3 4-5 - - 1 4-5 - - 1 3 2 2-3 - 1 - 2-3 - 1 - 2 1 0-1 0 0 0 0-1 0 0 0 1 Glancing at each section, you can probably already see that there are some key differences in how raw scores convert into scale scores. On the Science section, missing three questions gives you a scale score of 33 on the 2016-17 test but only a 30 on the 2005-06 test. This trend applies to the other scores in Science, too:you’d generally have to score more raw points in Science on the 2005-06 test to get the same scale scores in Science on the 2016-17 test. Thus,we can infer thatthe2005-06 Science questions were slightly easier than the 2016-17 Science questions. But do the other sections follow similar patterns? Yep!On Reading, a raw score of 35 translates to a scale score of 32 on the 2016-17 test but only a 30 on the 2005-06 test. Once again, this points to a slight difference in difficulty, with the 2005-06 Reading section being a little easier than the 2016-17 section. Likewise, on Math and English, the 2016-17 test tends to require fewer raw points to get certain scale scores than the 2005-06 test. Even withthe presence of these patterns, however, most differences in score conversions for the two tests are minimal.In fact, the vast majority of raw scores convert intoscale scores only one to two points lower or higher. So despite the fact there are clearly differencesin the equating formulasfor the two tests, we can conclude that the number of questions you must answer correctly to get certain scale scores on the ACT has remained relatively consistent throughout the years. Additionally,by taking into account the consistency of ACT percentiles, we seethat the overall difficulty of the ACT hasn’t experienced any drastic shifts, either, further supporting our conclusion. The number of sprinkles on these cookies is definitely NOT consistent. What Does the ACT Curve Mean for YOU? As I've mentioned before, theACT curve is extraordinarily useful for estimating the number of correct answers you'll need to get the scale score you want on test day. Before you start prepping for the ACT, find your target score. Then, use official ACT score conversion charts from practice tests to estimate the number of questions you'll need to get rightin order to reach your target scores for the English, Math, Reading, and Science sections. Just remember the caveat: noscore conversion chart will apply exactly to your upcoming ACT administration, as each of these charts showcasesthe equating process forone specific test.But by usingseveral charts together, you can give yourself a fairly accuraterange of raw-score-to-scale-score conversions. Additionally, it's important you understandthe following key pointsabout the ACT curve: When you take the ACT does not affectyour scale score.The equating process ensures that test takers on one test date will not have an advantage over test takers on a different test date, and this goes for state-sponsored administrations, as well. So don't believe the rumors - there's no easier or harder test date! (This is why raw scoresconvert differently intoscale scores!) Who takes the ACT does not affect your scale score.Scale scores are not like ACT percentilesin thatthey're not determined by how well other test takers perform. So, really, it doesn’t matter at all who you take the test with. Even if you were to take the ACT with all certified geniuses, their scores still wouldn't affect yours in the slightest! You can'tuse the ACT curve to game the system.Because you'llnever know beforehand how a specific ACTwill convert raw scores into scale scores, youcan't everguarantee yourself a higher score by taking the ACT on a certain date or with a specific group of people. Absolutely none of these factors affects the ACT curve, and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong! Unfortunately, you can't Houdini your way to a high ACT score. Recap: Is the ACT Curved? Despite what's often rumored, there is no ACT curve - at least not a traditional one. The ACT accounts for differences in difficulty among various administrations of the exam through a complex equating process. But because we don't know what the exact equating formula is for each test, we'll never be able to predict with certainty how raw scores on an upcoming ACT will convert into scale scores. Nevertheless, you can use score conversion tables from official ACT practice tests to estimate the number of correct answers you’ll need to reach your goal scores on test day. All official practice tests are based on past ACTs and thusoffer a realistic glimpse intohow raw scores typically convert into scale scores. Overall, the essential facts to remember about the ACT curve are the following: The ACT curve is actually an equating process that accounts for variances in difficulty among different test dates. Therefore,it doesn’t matter when or with whom you take thetest. The ACT curve has remained relatively stable over time, meaning the number of correct answers you need to get certain scale scores varies only minimallywith each test. You can't use the ACT curve to cheat the systemor secure yourself a higher ACT score, so don’t even bother trying! What’s Next? Want to learn more about ACT scoring?Get the rundown onhow the ACT is scoredand check out our guide for detailed tips on what the ACT score range means for you. Need ACT tips and resources?We've got a huge selection here at PrepScholar, whether you're looking for the best ACT prep books or our expert strategies for getting a perfect 36. What about the SAT? Does it have a curve, too? Hop on over tomy in-depth analysis of theSAT curve (coming soon) tolearn more about the SAT equating processand how raw SAT scores convert into scaled scores. Want to improve your ACT score by 4+ points? Download our free guide to the top 5 strategies you need in your prep to improve your ACT score dramatically.

The Use of Alcohol Rub in Preventing Infection Essay

The Use of Alcohol Rub in Preventing Infection - Essay Example According to Bloom, Fischer & Orme(2009) the ideology is derived from the ethical principle that is required by the clients for the most effective and possible interventions. For evidence based practice, typically, they use reviews of research on intervention effectiveness and then critically assess the reviews on the bases of validity and utility of practice. According to Children’s Workforce Development Council (2011), evidence based practice is a combination of the best external research and practitioner expertise and evaluation that is based on the evidence. I have found that evidence based practice is a way to update knowledge; essentially it can be used in different scenarios. As pointed out by McEwen and Wills (2002), evidence based nursing will fill the gap of research, theory and practice. According to him, it de-emphasizes isolated, rituals and unsystematic clinical experiences and traditions as the basis of practice. Therefore, once a nurse starts opting for evidenc e based practice, they come to know different ways through which they can use the experience of other practitioners (Cluett 2006). This is one of the basic reasons why, as an adult nurse, I prefer evidence based practice. Evidence Based Practice in Nursing: Evidence based practice, help the nurses tend to stay updated on the new discoveries (Beyea & Slattery, 2006).In my experience, I have noticed that as the nurses are sure that their decisions are based on valid information, the confidence in their practice increases, and their decisions power is increased. As cited in Barker J (2010), Pearson et al. (2008) identifies that a nurse is expected to understand the quality of evidence that is... The essay discusses three types of evidences: Systematic review is different from traditional literature review. Systematic review is a way to collect the evidence. In this method, the findings of all methodologically sound studies are summarized. The process reviews can help the practitioners to keep abreast of the medical literature. It involves the application of scientific strategies. In the nutshell, Cochrane Collaboration summaries that a systematic review is a high level overview of primary research on a particular research question that tries to identify, select, synthesize and appraise all high quality research evidence relevant to that question in order to answer it. I believe, when such a form of research is used in nursing, the decision making regarding health and the ratio to get benefits increases. In order to find that alcohol rub helps in preventing the spread of infection, different studies in this area can be reviewed. Through this, particular circumstances can be k nown in which alcoholic hand rubs must be used, and instances where it must not be made use of. Randomised controlled trails help to determine whether a cause-effect relationship exists between treatment and outcome, and to assess the cost effectiveness of a treatment. It is used to examine the effect of interventions on particular outcomes such as death or the recurrence of disease. Some consider randomizing controlled trials as the best research design. Therefore it is considered to be the most powerful type of experimental research.

NURSING (POPULATION AND SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION)-2 Assignment

NURSING (POPULATION AND SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION)-2 - Assignment Example This is also supported by the research results that the Health Functioning variable being determined is a considerable cause for the differences between women and men in carrying out comparative analysis for social support, quality of life and perceived coping. The t-ratio is significant because it indicates the difference between males and females. This is because the alpha value for the study was set at 0.05. Mental health was the largest variance between males and females with a value of -3.15. The data shows that t-ratio = -2.54 have a smaller p value that -2.50. This is an indication of a better health future for men, and women post MI physical roles and components, are highly interconnected and statistically noteworthy. Type 1 error results when the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a risk of Type 1 error in this study because multiple t-tests were performed on the study data. Multiple t-tests increase the risk for Type 1 errors. Bonferroni procedure is necessary for this study because it reduces the risk for Type 1 error. A number of multiple t-tests were conducted on the study data that increased the risk for Type 1 data. Therefore, Bonifferoni procedure is required to reduce risk of Type 1 error. df is the degree of freedom. A number of df values were reported, in the study, because they describe the freedom of different score’s values, in relation to other exiting scores’ values and sum of the scores. The differences between males and females post MI is significant. If this is consistent with the previous research, then I can assume that there will be a better health future for men, and women post MI physical roles and components will be highly interconnected and statistically