LITERTURE REVIEW Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

LITERTURE REVIEW - Essay Example Of all the industries, sectors that require professionals to continuously interact with non-professionals need effective communicators. Industries like hospitality, media, medical, legal and other service sectors need people not only with strong professional backgrounds, but also excellent communication skills. Nursing is a profession where nurses are required to not only assist the doctor in his work, but also ally the fears and apprehensions of the patient and his relatives. Nurses in hospitals become the primary care-givers and spend considerable time with the patients. They would very frequently find themselves in a position where they are the bridge between the specialist doctor and the patient. Thus, their role extends to that of an effective communicator. Various researchers have highlighted the importance of effective communication by nurses in their works. "Effective communication is a fundamental element of nursing care that is integral to the provision of quality patient care." (Ravert et al. 1997, Wilkinson et al. 1999, Bowles et al. cited in McGilton, 2005). By going through the literature available in various nursing journals, it would be easy to narrow down to the topic of my dissertation. Although a lot of research has been done in the field of effective communication as an integral part of the nursing profession, there are many grey areas even today. A lot needs to be done to achieve cent percent efficiency in the field. Surveys, trainings, evaluations, further research would provide a means to fill the lacunae in this field. Process of Literature Search The literature search was carried out through online medical/nursing journals .These have given a wide and varied range of literature on the subject. This literature review has used the results of studies and experiments carried out across the globe. The literature review includes research papers from Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, Canada; University of Alberta, Canada; Griffith University, Australia; Communication Disability Center, University of Queensland, Australia; and The Martlets Hospice, Hove, UK. These papers were downloaded from such vastly spread out sources so that there would be very little scope for bias and the review would be a well-balanced one. Under the keyword "effective communication", the review includes topics ranging from complex continuing care facility, palliative nursing, factors that influence communication between people with communication disability and their healthcare providers in hospitals, effective communication as a core competency for collabora tive practice among nurses to effective parent-nurse communication. These articles have been published over a period of nine years from 2001 to 2009.Thus, they include the latest research in the field of effective communication between nurses and patients and ways and means of achieving it. Also, these articles are themselves very well-researched and offer excellent secondary sources of reference. Findings The research studies definitely show that there is a lot of scope for further research and recommendations in the field of effective communication among nurses. The studies covered parent-nurse interactions and patient-nurse interactions under various circumstances and illnesses. The first paper

Determinisms Relation to Free

Determinisms Relation to Free Will Essay The stereotypical definition of determinism, to the layman, goes something like this: All events are predetermined so we have no free will. Actually, this is more or less the definition of hard determinism. Determinism, however, according to professor of philosophy Sandra LaFave, can co-exist with free will in the form of soft determinism, the philosophical theory that all events indeed have causes but that humans can still act voluntarily. Soft determinism provides a more widely-acceptable definition of determinism that agrees more with common usage of the words free will and cause. Hard determinism states that all events have causes and that we cannot be free as a result. Soft determinism, however, responds to this pessimistic conclusion by asserting that we can indeed have free will and still exist by the deterministic model in which all events have causes. Hard determinism correlates cause with force or compulsion and free with total control, whereas soft determinism correlates free with voluntary or not forced. Thus soft determinisms definitions of words more strongly agree with average, everyday usage. If I were forced to open my safe of personal savings at gunpoint, for example, soft determinism would suggest that I am not acting freely in this situation as I am being coerced by an external force to do something I otherwise wouldnt. If I were to open the safe voluntarily (no one is forcing me), then I am exerting my free will. This distinction may seem obvious, but its validity proves why we cant support hard determinism hard determinism would suggest that both actions are not done out of free will since both actions have causes. Therefore, our usage of the word free will cannot co-exist with hard determinism, but only soft determinism. In conclusion, determinism can co-exist with free will in an effective manner. I must admit, however, that soft determinisms validity rests on an agreement with what cause and free will, as defined above, mean. Still, hard determinism also relies on its own definitions of cause and free will, so this linguistic criticism does not undermine soft determinisms validity. Still, many more arguments regarding determinism and free will exist that are beyond the scope of my knowledge.

The Emergence of IT Governance in Greece

The Emergence of IT Governance in Greece Introduction The emergence of IT Governance The cases of Enron, Worldcom and other corporate and financial scandals in the early years of the century have raised the significance of corporate governance and control. Regulatory environments have been formed with quite distinctive characteristics, depending on the needs of each country, and the needs of specific industries. The implementation of the controls required by regulations such as Sarbanes Oxley for the publicly listed organisations in the U.S. and Basel II for European banks relies heavily on IT. That dependency, combined to the required controls on IT itself, have forced top-level executives to have a look towards the proper management and governance of the information and communication technologies that power their organisations. At the same time, the high percentage of failed IT projects, ranging between 60% and 90% depending on the definition of failure, has alarmed many executives who see their resources to be wasted on failed projects, to be followed by more failed projects. Clear decision processes and proper project management aiming at efficiency and effectiveness, are the obvious answers to the problem; both of which point directly to IT Governance. The high cost of IT investments, which is more than half of the annual CAPEX for most organisations, calls for control, accountability and risk management, not to mention cost reduction. Information security, industrial espionage, regulations for the confidentiality of the data and the privacy of employees and customers, are all gracefully handled by a proper IT Governance structure. These are only some of the reasons that have led quite a few organisations worldwide to add IT Governance in their board agenda. The status in Greece Greece has control regulations for specific industries only, such as telecommunications, an industry largely affected by the Hellenic authority for communication security and privacy. Other industries are affected by pan-European control regulations, such as banking industry that needs to comply with MIFID and Basel-II alongside the directives issued by the Bank of Greece. Finally, just a few companies are listed in foreign stock exchanges such as NYSE listed PTT, subsequently affected by the SOX act. Nevertheless, although the environment in Greece is complex, and the IT infrastructure is no simpler than any other countrys, there is no published empirical academic research on the status of IT Governance in Greece. Even surveys that are conducted in wider geographical areas and not to a specific country do not usually include Greece; probably because it is a small market. The only data that has been found are some papers mentioning the benefits of IT Governance, as taken from the international practice; the data though is not adapted to local needs and circumstances. Research Objectives This research, titled IT Governance in Greece: Status, Drivers and Barriers aims to evaluate and present the IT Governance related practices in Greece. What percentage of Greek companies are using IT Governance frameworks and best practices, which is the preferred framework between the two prevalent (ITIL and CobIT), and which is the decision model selected by the companies that employ IT Governance. An attempt will be made to find any relationships between these results, and the size of the organisation or the size of the IT department. The reasons for which Greek organisations select to implement or not an IT Governance framework will also be linked to that data and outsourcing strategies which are known to require careful governance will be evaluated. For the organisations that choose to not implement a formal governance framework, the barriers to implementation will be analysed, as well as the potential good practices which do not constitute a framework, nevertheless help to the prudent governance of an organisations IT assets and resources. The research questions that are expected to shed some light to the main areas of the status of IT Governance in Greece are formulated as follows: The penetration of ITIL and CobIT in Greece as IT Governance frameworks Which are the most common factors that prevent or delay the acceptance and deployment of an IT Governance framework (barriers)? Which are the most common reasons that led organisations to deploy, or plan the future deployment of an IT Governance framework (drivers)? Which (if any) are the management methods used if a full IT Governance framework is not deployed? Personal Interest The author has followed a career path in Information Technology for the last 15 years, acquiring positions of raising responsibilities. In alignment to that career path, the MBA was considered a good choice, providing a broader view on all areas of management such as organisational behaviour and culture, human relationships, finance and marketing, strategy and implementation. The subject of this dissertation combines the two worlds, that of management and of information technology, giving a more thorough and business oriented view to the authors subject of work. Beyond the obvious curiosity that is created by the lack of data in the Greek market in which the author lives and works, there has always been an interest in IT Governance, IT management and risk management, and this dissertation comes to cover at least some of these areas. Structure of the dissertation The rest of the dissertation has a typical structure the introduction that was just provided constitutes the chapter one. Chapter two provides a review of the existing literature and previous studies on IT Governance; that should form the basis for the research that was necessary for this dissertation. Chapter three analyses and justifies the methodology that was used for the sampling, the data collection and data analysis methods that were selected. This chapter also presents and analyses some limitations related to the methodology, and presents the ways in which these limitations may affect the data analysis and the conclusions. Chapter four is the data analysis, in which all data that were collected are analysed and presented, relations are drawn and comparisons to findings from previous research are performed in order to fully answer the research questions set in this dissertation. Chapter five draws on the conclusions of the previous chapter. It summarizes the research objectives, the findings and the implications of the results. Generalization issues and data validity is further discussed. This chapter provides also recommendations for future studies, identifying details that were not included in this survey and questions that have emerged from the results of the current dissertation. Finally, this chapter reflects on the dissertation, assessing the weaknesses of the work performed and the obstacles faced; it also identifies the areas in which the author has gained knowledge and experience. Literature Review Introduction A literature review is vital to any research project, in order to collect, present and critically analyse, what is already known in the subject under research. The evaluation of previous research leads to a better understanding of the subject, of the areas of consensus between academics and practitioners, and the points of conflict and potential gaps. Towards the answer of the status of IT Governance in Greece, an attempt will be made to explain the term IT Governance and clarify any misconceptions regarding IT Governance and IT Management. The different types of IT Governance models that have been developed in the past, along with the key roles in IT Governance, will be identified, presented and compared. The necessity for IT Governance as suggested in the literature will be evaluated, and the most commonly mentioned benefits and implementation barriers will be presented, in order to serve as potential answers to the questionnaire of the research. Previous reports on management methods that may be used instead of a full framework implementation will also be evaluated for the same reasons. The definition of IT Governance IT Governance is a subject that has gained significant focus during the last years. As a term, IT Governance, has too many definitions in the literature (Buckby, Best and Stewart, 2009; Lee and Lee, 2009; Lee, Lee and Lee, 2009). Simonsson and Ekstedt (2006) tried to find a common definition on 60 different relative articles; and came up with yet another definition, which includes many of the previous ones. The definitions used by researchers, depend on their view on what IT Governance can offer to an organisation. IT Governance is sometimes perceived as a framework or a process for auditing the use of the IT infrastructure and operations. Some other times sometimes it is perceived as an IT decision making tool which allocates the decision rights in order to encourage a predictable behaviour in the use of IT, while for others IT Governance is a branch of corporate governance focusing on the control and the strategic view of IT (Musson, 2009). Not few have used definitions that mix and match more than one of these views, such as Peterson (2004), Higgins and Sinclair (2008) and Simonsson and Johnson (2007). A definition that is, in the authors opinion, quite clear and inclusive, is the following: IT Governance is a framework for the leadership, organizational structures and business processes, standards and compliance to these standards, which ensures that the organizations IT supports and enables the achievement of its strategies and objectives. (Calder, 2007) Lee and Lee (2009) make the link of IT Governance with Corporate Governance. They suggest that IT Governance is a mix of Corporate Governance and IT Management; meaning that IT Governance addresses the transparency and control that corporate governance focuses upon, and the efficiency and effectiveness that IT management aims at. IT Governance as part of the corporate governance is also suggested by Peterson (2004), Bhatttacharjya and Chang (2009), ODonohue, Pye and Warren (2009). Several researchers have pointed out that IT Governance is not the same as IT Management. The former refers to the definition of who has the rights for major decision making, while the later refers to the actual making of the decisions and the implementation itself (Broadbend, cited in Buckby et al., 2009; Calder, 2009; Sambamurthy and Zmud, 1999; Toomey, 2009; Van Grembergen and De Haes, 2009). Regarding the subject and scope of IT Governance, the IT Governance Institute suggests five distinct but interacting domains: The Strategic Alignment, Value Delivery, Risk Management, Resource Management and Performance Management. The need for IT Governance The need for IT Governance has not been extensively debated; almost everybody agree that the proper governance of IT is necessary. The reasons though provided to support this argument vary, and the organisations do not seem to have been persuaded by that position. A quite common reason provided to support the necessity of IT Governance, is the increased complexity of the IT infrastructure that is caused by the amount of data that an organisation holds, and the role of this information (Laplante and Costello, 2006). IT is not only complex, but it also has its own fast changing and unique conditions, as such the need to apply sound management disciplines and controls is even greater (NCC, 2005). Risk management is one more reason for IT Governance. Risk is caused by the growing dependency of organisations on IT resources which should not be neglected; the percentage of companies that are vitally dependent on IT for their continuing operation, was over 75% in 2004 (KPMG, cited at Musson, 2009). That dependency makes the potential unavailability of IT based services a significant problem for organisations such as banks and hospitals. The lack of availability is not the only danger caused by that dependency; cyber crime, fraud, information inaccuracy are just a few more issues that need proper identification and management (Van Grembergen and De Haes 2009). Instead of implementing IT solutions, the focus now has shifted to changing the business processes, to be enabled by IT. The solutions implemented are generally more complex due to this shift, and subsequently there is a greater risk with the implementation of IT-enabled business processes (Higgins and Sinclair, 2008). From the management perspective, that dependency means that management needs to be more aware of the critical IT risks, and to be assured that they are adequately managed (NCC, 2005). High organisational performance is another reason found in the literature, although that one is debatable. Liew believes that IT Governance can ensure proper measurement and preservation of an achieved performance (cited at Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009), nevertheless Young has pointed out through a literature review that there is no convincing evidence that superior business performance is a result of any of IT Governance guidelines (Young, 2006). Typically, IT investments are significantly high. They account for over 50% of the average organisations annual total capital investment (Baschab and Piot, 2007; Carr, 2003; Weill and Woodham, 2002), as such their management in a responsive, effective and efficient way is usually a requirement that should be set by the management board. On the monetary field, cost optimisation of the IT projects and service delivery, are also considered important issues by several researchers (Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009; Fairchild et al, 2009; Menken, 2009; Peterson, 2004). The amount of money spent is important, but the need that the enterprises investment in IT is in harmony with its objectives is usually considered more significant (Buckby et al, 2009). This is called Business IT Alignment, which is a quite old issue; several studies from mid-80s have focused on the alignment of the IT operations with the business objectives (Brown and Magill, 1994). Some researchers do not agree with the need for the Business IT alignment at all (Sillince and Frost, 1995). Koh and Maguire (2009) also suggest that Business IT alignment maybe the wrong strategy for smaller businesses, which may be agile enough to change course quickly following the new ICT arrivals in the business. They also mention that Venkatraman questions the logic behind alignment; nevertheless, this is a false interpretation of Venkatramans study, who clearly states that IT needs to support the business logic. Carr (2003) has written one of the most controversial articles on the issue, statin g that IT is not able to provide the competitive advantage that organisations need. Laplante and Costello (2006) make clear that they do not agree with that view, while Harris, Herron and Iwanicki (2008) get the opportunity to provide metrics on the value that IT can provide, instead of just dismissing Carrs argument. According to a different should of thought, Business IT alignment has been identified as a significant management concern (Brown and Magill, 1994; Cameron, 2007; Kashanchi and Toland, 2006; Silvius, 2007) and effort is put in order to identify the potential benefits of Business IT alignment. In fact, a recent study by Nash (2009) proves a positive correlation between firm level sales and the so-called Strategic Alignment Maturity; i.e. the maturity level of the business IT alignment. By considering Business IT alignment as something that organisations want to achieve, it is yet another reason to exercise governance of the IT. The relationship between IT governance and Business IT alignment has been proven (BMC Software, 2007; Musson and Jordan, 2006). Additionally, IT governance is strongly suggested by researchers as the best option for the maintenance of the alignment of IT to the continuously evolving organisational needs (Cameron, 2007; Harris et al, 2008; Pultorak, 2006; Sambamurthy and Zmud, 1999). Although Business IT Alignment is a common issue, it puts IT in a passive role; it makes it a follower. Proper governance can transform IT from a follower to a leader; IT is able to set the business agenda and partially affect the organisations strategic objectives (Addy, 2007; Baschab and Piot, 2007; Weill and Woodham, 2002). A research by NCC (2005) has identified a potentially widening gap between what IT departments think the business requires, and what the business thinks the IT department is able to deliver. This can be addressed by IT Governance, through which an organisation wide view of IT may be generated and promoted (Laplante and Costello, 2006; Weill and Woodham, 2002). That means that IT should have a thorough understanding and a participation in the improvement of business processes and their interdependencies. The other way round is also important, i.e. organisations need to obtain a better understanding of the value delivered by IT, both internally and from external suppliers. Measures are required in business (the customers) terms to achieve this. Key elements for that understanding include the enterprise wide view of IT budget (Addy, 2007; Weill and Woodham, 2002). One more reason found in the literature to promote IT Governance, is the compliance to regulatory requirements. Specific legislation and regulatory requirements, such as Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) almost dictate the use of an IT governance framework (Buckby et al., 2009; Higgins and Sinclair, 2008). Others, such as HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) and Basel-II do not dictate, but certainly describe an IT Governance framework through their requirements for accountability on investments, information security and assurance, risk management and decision processes (Harris et al, 2008; Higgins and Sinclair, 2008; Pultorak, 2006; Network Frontiers, 2008; NCC, 2005; van Grembergen and De Haes, 2009). Yet another commonly stated key benefit of proper IT Governance is clear and transparent decision making regarding IT resources (Baschab and Piot, 2007; Brown and Grand, 2005; Lee and Lee, 2009; Tshinu, Botha and Herselman, 2008). The lack of clarity and transparency for the decision making process, can lead to reluctance to take risks, and subsequently failure to seize technology opportunities (NCC, 2005) Separate decision processes followed by the IT and business, may mean that there is not enough shared ownership and clarity of resources, which also means that there may be a lack of accountability. IT Governance models Although IT Governance sets the decision making process, it does not define who decides. IT Governance decision authorities may be structured in different models, depending on the organisation. The three prevailing ones are the centralized, decentralized and federal (hybrid) according to their modes of distributing authorities and responsibilities for decision-making (Brown and Magill, 1994; Fairchild et al, 2009; Peterson, 2004; Sambamurthy and Zmud, 1999), while the pair of centralized / decentralized may also be found as the only choices (Laplante and Costello, 2006; Robb and Parent, 2009). Ross and Weill (2002) and Cameron (2007) expressed their quite strong preference on centralized IT Governance model, i.e. decisions being made centrally, but Ross and Weill revisited that view in 2004; they suggested that there are six (6) archetypes / models of IT Governance, on 5 different IT domains. From more centralised to less centralised, they identified Business monarchy, IT monarchy, Federal, IT Duopoly, Feudal and Anarchy. The two monarchies are quite clear, meaning that Business or IT respectively has the major responsibility for decisions. Anarchy is quite clear as well, meaning that there is no standardization. Federal and IT duopoly involve business executives and IT executives in the decision making process, with federal to give more power to the business than IT duopoly. Finally, feudal archetype brings the decision level down to business units or processes. The IT domains on which decisions need to be made, are IT principles such as funding and role of the IT in the business, IT Architecture which refers to the identification and development of the core business processes of the enterprise and relative information, IT infrastructure, business application needs such as the owner of the outcome of each project and IT investment and prioritization. That model classification from Ross and Weill is unique; as stated earlier, most other researchers have selected a simpler classification scheme. Ein-Dor and Segev (cited at Tavakolian, 1989) found that the revenue of the organisation is positively related to centralized IT Governance but there is no relation between the governance model and the size of the organisation. There is empirical proof that a link between the IT structure with the organisational competitive strategy exists; conservative organisations are more centralised than aggressive ones (Tavakolian, 1989). These results are supported by more recent research with consistent findings; Weill and Woodham (2002) and Weill and Ross (2004) found that top performing firms on profit were mostly centralized, while top performers on growth were mostly decentralized. A link between the organisations industry type and level of de-centralization of IT Governance has not been found (Ahituv et al, cited at Brown and Grant, 2005). It has to be noted that the model of IT Governance in an organisation may also be dictated by external factors, such as SOX which promotes a centralized IT Governance model, while Australian governance frameworks (mainly, AS 8015) drive the organisations towards a de-centralized IT Governance model (Robb and Parent, 2009). IT Governance Frameworks Information Technology Infrastructure Library The Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) is a framework of best practices for IT Service Management. It is comprised of five books which focus on five different aspects of IT Service Management and Service Lifecycle: Service Strategy Service Design Service Transition Service Operation Continual Service Improvement Each one of the books, defines a set of processes such as IT Financial Management, Supplier Management, Change Management, Incident Management and Service Measurement and Reporting; a total of 23 processes are defined with a set of actions and roles required for each process. The definition of several of the processes and the subsequent roles is consistent with the IT Governance definition we used earlier; nevertheless a big amount of the defined processes such as event management and validation and testing, are much more focused on the management part than to that of the governance. ITIL is considered to be the framework that is closer to service management than control, from the other two frameworks, CobIT and ISO/IEC 38500:2008 and has a more narrow scope than CobIT (Van Grembergen and De Haes, 2009; Simonsson and Ekstedt, 2006; Simonsson, Johnson and Wijkstrà ¶m, 2007; Sallà ©, 2004; McBride, 2009). That focus of ITIL to service delivery and management was more obvious in version 2, which did not address issues such as Risk Management, Performance Monitoring and IT Governance (generic strategic direction and alignment) at all. As such it was mostly perceived as a framework for service desk management. Although the effectiveness of ITIL version 2 to the alignment of IT with business objectives has been repeatedly pointed out (BMC Software, 2007; Harris et al, 2008; Pultorak, 2006) and even experimentally proven (Kashanchi and Toland, 2006), it was never the primary driver for ITIL adaptation. A survey conducted by Bruton Consultancy for the Helpdesk Institute Europe (now renamed as Service Desk Institute) for the value that ITIL has brought in companies that have implemented it, indicated that the contribution of ITIL to the business strategy was not even considered as an issue by the majority of the correspondents (70%). The same holds for the perception of the participants on t he competitive advantage that may be provided by proper IT management through ITIL. More than half (66%) responded that this was not considered in the decision for ITIL implementation (Bruton, 2005). With version 3, ITIL gained a broader scope than version 2 and added significant emphasis on business strategy. That change, led some IT management consultants to declare ITIL version 3 as inappropriate for helpdesk and service management processes (Bruton, 2007), not strange since version 2 focused on processes while version 3 focuses on Business Value (Harris et al, 2008). Beyond the not strategic enough type of criticism, ITIL has also been criticised as a flawed and uneven framework. Dean Meyer identifies pitfalls in its implementation; nevertheless, he also states that it is an implementation issue and not a framework issue (Meyer, 2009 web site). ITIL has also been characterized as a too generic framework, which is not able to provide value if used off-the-shelf without significant adaptations (Baschab and Piot, 2007), an unfair criticism as ITIL is promoted as a set of best practices, not as a complete, fits-all framework. This concession should invalidate yet another criticism raised by Simonsson (2008), the lack of a maturity model. Another criticism of ITIL is that the documentation is not free (Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009). That is a valid point, nevertheless the cost of the books is quite low for companies (less than  £400 for the whole set). Other criticisms include the stifling of the creativity of those who implement it, and that it b ecomes a goal by itself having a heavy administrative burden (Addy, 2007). All these points are valid, but they can be attributed to the extension of ITIL. Control Objectives for Information and related Technology Control Objectives for information and related Technology (CobIT) is a control framework developed by the IT Governance Institute. CobIT defines processes and controls, and uses the grouping of activities in four domains: Plan and Organise Acquire and Implement Deliver and Support Monitor and Evaluate Each domain contains a set of processes, 34 at total, and each process defines specific controls, which sum up to 210 for all processes. CobIT defines inputs and outputs, as well as a maturity model for each process, making the control of compliance a very easy task. RACI (responsible, accountable, consulted and informed) charts are also provided, drawing a clear guideline on who should be involved in every process step. Goals and metrics, in the form of outcome measures (key goal indicators KGIs) and performance indicators (key performance indicators KPIs) respectively are also provided, mapping business goals to IT goals, which can be achieved by one, or the interaction of several processes. CobIT is generally used where there is a need for auditing functions, in comparison with ITIL, which is better suited to operational process improvement (ODonohue et al, 2009). In contrast to ITIL, CobIT has extensive documentation available free of charge, including the framework itself and several case studies. Several implementation documents though are only available for purchase, such as CobIT Quickstart, while others are available free for ISACA members or for purchase for non-members such as Security Baseline and User Guide for Service Managers. Several consultants and practitioners criticise CobIT that it only states the obvious, that it is very high level, is only a generic framework and does not provide specific and repeatable implementation steps (Culmsee, 2009; Toigo, 2005). This is not a common view, as others find CobIT to be quite prescriptive (Pultorak, 2006; Robb and Parent, 2009). That may be explained by the fact that although CobIT framework itself is indeed high level, a different publication is provided by ISACA, named CobIT Control Practices which is quite prescriptive. Academics criticise CobIT as providing little support for improved decision making, although many metrics are defined (Simonsson and Johnson, 2006). Others state that CobIT is expressed almost entirely in terms of process, focusing on how to govern but not what to govern (Lee et al, 2009). Another criticism states that CobIT is significantly more focused on auditing, largely ignoring other aspects of governance such as software development an d service delivery (NetFrontiers, 2005). CobIT is also characterized as a framework that needs significant knowledge and know how for a successful implementation (Simonsson et al, 2007), and that it takes time to introduce solid IT Governance through it (Rogers, 2009); although the opposite would be strange, given the wide area of processes and functions that CobIT addresses. Finally, while ITIL is known as the framework that guides you on how to get where you want to be, CobIT merely focuses on where you should be; that may be good or bad, depending on ones point of view and needs. ISO / IEC 38500:2008 The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) attempted to solve the confusion between IT Management and IT Governance, and at the same time provide guiding principles on IT Governance, in the recently published ISO/IEC 38500:2008. Because ISO/IEC 38500 establishes principles to guide the behaviour of organisations, it complements frameworks that focus on process, such as ITIL and COBIT. Thus, with the right frameworks or processes, complemented by the right behaviours, organisations are more likely to establish highly effective systems of governance. After all, it has been stated that ITIL and CobIT are not mutually exclusive; they are rather complementary and organisations will probably benefit from a mixed approach, adopting what is more applicable in every case, from the two frameworks (Chickowsky, cited at Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009). ISO/IEC 38500 can also be combined with these two and ITGI has even issued a specific document demonstrating how and which specific CobIT and ValIT controls support the adoption of the standards principles and implementation approach. Nevertheless, ISO/IEC 38500:2008 is very recent to be evaluated. As of the time of conducting this research, there is not enough information on the implementation, benefits or drawbacks of ISO 38500:2008. Common drivers for IT Governance implementation While the need for IT Governance has well been described, the benefits sought, i.e. the reasons for the implementation of an IT Governance framework vary, sometimes depending on the point of view of the observer. As drivers, we consider the motivator factors, which may lead an organisation to the implementation of an IT Governance framework. For IT Managers, IT Governance is a mechanism for the alignment of the IT with business on the projects that are going to be pursuit. For IT Auditors, it is mainly a control mechanism that can help them achieve compliance with regulations, and to manage the risks that are related to IT projects better. For IT Service management professionals, IT Governance ensures that not only the IT services offered are aligned to the current and future business needs, but they are also managed for efficiency, effectiveness and specific quality objectives (Pultorak, 2006). Recent surveys have indicated that the most important benefits expected from the implementation of an IT Governance framework are proper risk management, the resource management of IT, the performance measurement of IT and the business IT alignment. Along these, cost reduction, productivity improvements and organisation wide view of IT are commonly mentioned. (ITGI, 2008; BMC Software, 2007; Milne and Bowles, 2009; Yanosky and McCredie The Emergence of IT Governance in Greece The Emergence of IT Governance in Greece Introduction The emergence of IT Governance The cases of Enron, Worldcom and other corporate and financial scandals in the early years of the century have raised the significance of corporate governance and control. Regulatory environments have been formed with quite distinctive characteristics, depending on the needs of each country, and the needs of specific industries. The implementation of the controls required by regulations such as Sarbanes Oxley for the publicly listed organisations in the U.S. and Basel II for European banks relies heavily on IT. That dependency, combined to the required controls on IT itself, have forced top-level executives to have a look towards the proper management and governance of the information and communication technologies that power their organisations. At the same time, the high percentage of failed IT projects, ranging between 60% and 90% depending on the definition of failure, has alarmed many executives who see their resources to be wasted on failed projects, to be followed by more failed projects. Clear decision processes and proper project management aiming at efficiency and effectiveness, are the obvious answers to the problem; both of which point directly to IT Governance. The high cost of IT investments, which is more than half of the annual CAPEX for most organisations, calls for control, accountability and risk management, not to mention cost reduction. Information security, industrial espionage, regulations for the confidentiality of the data and the privacy of employees and customers, are all gracefully handled by a proper IT Governance structure. These are only some of the reasons that have led quite a few organisations worldwide to add IT Governance in their board agenda. The status in Greece Greece has control regulations for specific industries only, such as telecommunications, an industry largely affected by the Hellenic authority for communication security and privacy. Other industries are affected by pan-European control regulations, such as banking industry that needs to comply with MIFID and Basel-II alongside the directives issued by the Bank of Greece. Finally, just a few companies are listed in foreign stock exchanges such as NYSE listed PTT, subsequently affected by the SOX act. Nevertheless, although the environment in Greece is complex, and the IT infrastructure is no simpler than any other countrys, there is no published empirical academic research on the status of IT Governance in Greece. Even surveys that are conducted in wider geographical areas and not to a specific country do not usually include Greece; probably because it is a small market. The only data that has been found are some papers mentioning the benefits of IT Governance, as taken from the international practice; the data though is not adapted to local needs and circumstances. Research Objectives This research, titled IT Governance in Greece: Status, Drivers and Barriers aims to evaluate and present the IT Governance related practices in Greece. What percentage of Greek companies are using IT Governance frameworks and best practices, which is the preferred framework between the two prevalent (ITIL and CobIT), and which is the decision model selected by the companies that employ IT Governance. An attempt will be made to find any relationships between these results, and the size of the organisation or the size of the IT department. The reasons for which Greek organisations select to implement or not an IT Governance framework will also be linked to that data and outsourcing strategies which are known to require careful governance will be evaluated. For the organisations that choose to not implement a formal governance framework, the barriers to implementation will be analysed, as well as the potential good practices which do not constitute a framework, nevertheless help to the prudent governance of an organisations IT assets and resources. The research questions that are expected to shed some light to the main areas of the status of IT Governance in Greece are formulated as follows: The penetration of ITIL and CobIT in Greece as IT Governance frameworks Which are the most common factors that prevent or delay the acceptance and deployment of an IT Governance framework (barriers)? Which are the most common reasons that led organisations to deploy, or plan the future deployment of an IT Governance framework (drivers)? Which (if any) are the management methods used if a full IT Governance framework is not deployed? Personal Interest The author has followed a career path in Information Technology for the last 15 years, acquiring positions of raising responsibilities. In alignment to that career path, the MBA was considered a good choice, providing a broader view on all areas of management such as organisational behaviour and culture, human relationships, finance and marketing, strategy and implementation. The subject of this dissertation combines the two worlds, that of management and of information technology, giving a more thorough and business oriented view to the authors subject of work. Beyond the obvious curiosity that is created by the lack of data in the Greek market in which the author lives and works, there has always been an interest in IT Governance, IT management and risk management, and this dissertation comes to cover at least some of these areas. Structure of the dissertation The rest of the dissertation has a typical structure the introduction that was just provided constitutes the chapter one. Chapter two provides a review of the existing literature and previous studies on IT Governance; that should form the basis for the research that was necessary for this dissertation. Chapter three analyses and justifies the methodology that was used for the sampling, the data collection and data analysis methods that were selected. This chapter also presents and analyses some limitations related to the methodology, and presents the ways in which these limitations may affect the data analysis and the conclusions. Chapter four is the data analysis, in which all data that were collected are analysed and presented, relations are drawn and comparisons to findings from previous research are performed in order to fully answer the research questions set in this dissertation. Chapter five draws on the conclusions of the previous chapter. It summarizes the research objectives, the findings and the implications of the results. Generalization issues and data validity is further discussed. This chapter provides also recommendations for future studies, identifying details that were not included in this survey and questions that have emerged from the results of the current dissertation. Finally, this chapter reflects on the dissertation, assessing the weaknesses of the work performed and the obstacles faced; it also identifies the areas in which the author has gained knowledge and experience. Literature Review Introduction A literature review is vital to any research project, in order to collect, present and critically analyse, what is already known in the subject under research. The evaluation of previous research leads to a better understanding of the subject, of the areas of consensus between academics and practitioners, and the points of conflict and potential gaps. Towards the answer of the status of IT Governance in Greece, an attempt will be made to explain the term IT Governance and clarify any misconceptions regarding IT Governance and IT Management. The different types of IT Governance models that have been developed in the past, along with the key roles in IT Governance, will be identified, presented and compared. The necessity for IT Governance as suggested in the literature will be evaluated, and the most commonly mentioned benefits and implementation barriers will be presented, in order to serve as potential answers to the questionnaire of the research. Previous reports on management methods that may be used instead of a full framework implementation will also be evaluated for the same reasons. The definition of IT Governance IT Governance is a subject that has gained significant focus during the last years. As a term, IT Governance, has too many definitions in the literature (Buckby, Best and Stewart, 2009; Lee and Lee, 2009; Lee, Lee and Lee, 2009). Simonsson and Ekstedt (2006) tried to find a common definition on 60 different relative articles; and came up with yet another definition, which includes many of the previous ones. The definitions used by researchers, depend on their view on what IT Governance can offer to an organisation. IT Governance is sometimes perceived as a framework or a process for auditing the use of the IT infrastructure and operations. Some other times sometimes it is perceived as an IT decision making tool which allocates the decision rights in order to encourage a predictable behaviour in the use of IT, while for others IT Governance is a branch of corporate governance focusing on the control and the strategic view of IT (Musson, 2009). Not few have used definitions that mix and match more than one of these views, such as Peterson (2004), Higgins and Sinclair (2008) and Simonsson and Johnson (2007). A definition that is, in the authors opinion, quite clear and inclusive, is the following: IT Governance is a framework for the leadership, organizational structures and business processes, standards and compliance to these standards, which ensures that the organizations IT supports and enables the achievement of its strategies and objectives. (Calder, 2007) Lee and Lee (2009) make the link of IT Governance with Corporate Governance. They suggest that IT Governance is a mix of Corporate Governance and IT Management; meaning that IT Governance addresses the transparency and control that corporate governance focuses upon, and the efficiency and effectiveness that IT management aims at. IT Governance as part of the corporate governance is also suggested by Peterson (2004), Bhatttacharjya and Chang (2009), ODonohue, Pye and Warren (2009). Several researchers have pointed out that IT Governance is not the same as IT Management. The former refers to the definition of who has the rights for major decision making, while the later refers to the actual making of the decisions and the implementation itself (Broadbend, cited in Buckby et al., 2009; Calder, 2009; Sambamurthy and Zmud, 1999; Toomey, 2009; Van Grembergen and De Haes, 2009). Regarding the subject and scope of IT Governance, the IT Governance Institute suggests five distinct but interacting domains: The Strategic Alignment, Value Delivery, Risk Management, Resource Management and Performance Management. The need for IT Governance The need for IT Governance has not been extensively debated; almost everybody agree that the proper governance of IT is necessary. The reasons though provided to support this argument vary, and the organisations do not seem to have been persuaded by that position. A quite common reason provided to support the necessity of IT Governance, is the increased complexity of the IT infrastructure that is caused by the amount of data that an organisation holds, and the role of this information (Laplante and Costello, 2006). IT is not only complex, but it also has its own fast changing and unique conditions, as such the need to apply sound management disciplines and controls is even greater (NCC, 2005). Risk management is one more reason for IT Governance. Risk is caused by the growing dependency of organisations on IT resources which should not be neglected; the percentage of companies that are vitally dependent on IT for their continuing operation, was over 75% in 2004 (KPMG, cited at Musson, 2009). That dependency makes the potential unavailability of IT based services a significant problem for organisations such as banks and hospitals. The lack of availability is not the only danger caused by that dependency; cyber crime, fraud, information inaccuracy are just a few more issues that need proper identification and management (Van Grembergen and De Haes 2009). Instead of implementing IT solutions, the focus now has shifted to changing the business processes, to be enabled by IT. The solutions implemented are generally more complex due to this shift, and subsequently there is a greater risk with the implementation of IT-enabled business processes (Higgins and Sinclair, 2008). From the management perspective, that dependency means that management needs to be more aware of the critical IT risks, and to be assured that they are adequately managed (NCC, 2005). High organisational performance is another reason found in the literature, although that one is debatable. Liew believes that IT Governance can ensure proper measurement and preservation of an achieved performance (cited at Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009), nevertheless Young has pointed out through a literature review that there is no convincing evidence that superior business performance is a result of any of IT Governance guidelines (Young, 2006). Typically, IT investments are significantly high. They account for over 50% of the average organisations annual total capital investment (Baschab and Piot, 2007; Carr, 2003; Weill and Woodham, 2002), as such their management in a responsive, effective and efficient way is usually a requirement that should be set by the management board. On the monetary field, cost optimisation of the IT projects and service delivery, are also considered important issues by several researchers (Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009; Fairchild et al, 2009; Menken, 2009; Peterson, 2004). The amount of money spent is important, but the need that the enterprises investment in IT is in harmony with its objectives is usually considered more significant (Buckby et al, 2009). This is called Business IT Alignment, which is a quite old issue; several studies from mid-80s have focused on the alignment of the IT operations with the business objectives (Brown and Magill, 1994). Some researchers do not agree with the need for the Business IT alignment at all (Sillince and Frost, 1995). Koh and Maguire (2009) also suggest that Business IT alignment maybe the wrong strategy for smaller businesses, which may be agile enough to change course quickly following the new ICT arrivals in the business. They also mention that Venkatraman questions the logic behind alignment; nevertheless, this is a false interpretation of Venkatramans study, who clearly states that IT needs to support the business logic. Carr (2003) has written one of the most controversial articles on the issue, statin g that IT is not able to provide the competitive advantage that organisations need. Laplante and Costello (2006) make clear that they do not agree with that view, while Harris, Herron and Iwanicki (2008) get the opportunity to provide metrics on the value that IT can provide, instead of just dismissing Carrs argument. According to a different should of thought, Business IT alignment has been identified as a significant management concern (Brown and Magill, 1994; Cameron, 2007; Kashanchi and Toland, 2006; Silvius, 2007) and effort is put in order to identify the potential benefits of Business IT alignment. In fact, a recent study by Nash (2009) proves a positive correlation between firm level sales and the so-called Strategic Alignment Maturity; i.e. the maturity level of the business IT alignment. By considering Business IT alignment as something that organisations want to achieve, it is yet another reason to exercise governance of the IT. The relationship between IT governance and Business IT alignment has been proven (BMC Software, 2007; Musson and Jordan, 2006). Additionally, IT governance is strongly suggested by researchers as the best option for the maintenance of the alignment of IT to the continuously evolving organisational needs (Cameron, 2007; Harris et al, 2008; Pultorak, 2006; Sambamurthy and Zmud, 1999). Although Business IT Alignment is a common issue, it puts IT in a passive role; it makes it a follower. Proper governance can transform IT from a follower to a leader; IT is able to set the business agenda and partially affect the organisations strategic objectives (Addy, 2007; Baschab and Piot, 2007; Weill and Woodham, 2002). A research by NCC (2005) has identified a potentially widening gap between what IT departments think the business requires, and what the business thinks the IT department is able to deliver. This can be addressed by IT Governance, through which an organisation wide view of IT may be generated and promoted (Laplante and Costello, 2006; Weill and Woodham, 2002). That means that IT should have a thorough understanding and a participation in the improvement of business processes and their interdependencies. The other way round is also important, i.e. organisations need to obtain a better understanding of the value delivered by IT, both internally and from external suppliers. Measures are required in business (the customers) terms to achieve this. Key elements for that understanding include the enterprise wide view of IT budget (Addy, 2007; Weill and Woodham, 2002). One more reason found in the literature to promote IT Governance, is the compliance to regulatory requirements. Specific legislation and regulatory requirements, such as Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) almost dictate the use of an IT governance framework (Buckby et al., 2009; Higgins and Sinclair, 2008). Others, such as HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) and Basel-II do not dictate, but certainly describe an IT Governance framework through their requirements for accountability on investments, information security and assurance, risk management and decision processes (Harris et al, 2008; Higgins and Sinclair, 2008; Pultorak, 2006; Network Frontiers, 2008; NCC, 2005; van Grembergen and De Haes, 2009). Yet another commonly stated key benefit of proper IT Governance is clear and transparent decision making regarding IT resources (Baschab and Piot, 2007; Brown and Grand, 2005; Lee and Lee, 2009; Tshinu, Botha and Herselman, 2008). The lack of clarity and transparency for the decision making process, can lead to reluctance to take risks, and subsequently failure to seize technology opportunities (NCC, 2005) Separate decision processes followed by the IT and business, may mean that there is not enough shared ownership and clarity of resources, which also means that there may be a lack of accountability. IT Governance models Although IT Governance sets the decision making process, it does not define who decides. IT Governance decision authorities may be structured in different models, depending on the organisation. The three prevailing ones are the centralized, decentralized and federal (hybrid) according to their modes of distributing authorities and responsibilities for decision-making (Brown and Magill, 1994; Fairchild et al, 2009; Peterson, 2004; Sambamurthy and Zmud, 1999), while the pair of centralized / decentralized may also be found as the only choices (Laplante and Costello, 2006; Robb and Parent, 2009). Ross and Weill (2002) and Cameron (2007) expressed their quite strong preference on centralized IT Governance model, i.e. decisions being made centrally, but Ross and Weill revisited that view in 2004; they suggested that there are six (6) archetypes / models of IT Governance, on 5 different IT domains. From more centralised to less centralised, they identified Business monarchy, IT monarchy, Federal, IT Duopoly, Feudal and Anarchy. The two monarchies are quite clear, meaning that Business or IT respectively has the major responsibility for decisions. Anarchy is quite clear as well, meaning that there is no standardization. Federal and IT duopoly involve business executives and IT executives in the decision making process, with federal to give more power to the business than IT duopoly. Finally, feudal archetype brings the decision level down to business units or processes. The IT domains on which decisions need to be made, are IT principles such as funding and role of the IT in the business, IT Architecture which refers to the identification and development of the core business processes of the enterprise and relative information, IT infrastructure, business application needs such as the owner of the outcome of each project and IT investment and prioritization. That model classification from Ross and Weill is unique; as stated earlier, most other researchers have selected a simpler classification scheme. Ein-Dor and Segev (cited at Tavakolian, 1989) found that the revenue of the organisation is positively related to centralized IT Governance but there is no relation between the governance model and the size of the organisation. There is empirical proof that a link between the IT structure with the organisational competitive strategy exists; conservative organisations are more centralised than aggressive ones (Tavakolian, 1989). These results are supported by more recent research with consistent findings; Weill and Woodham (2002) and Weill and Ross (2004) found that top performing firms on profit were mostly centralized, while top performers on growth were mostly decentralized. A link between the organisations industry type and level of de-centralization of IT Governance has not been found (Ahituv et al, cited at Brown and Grant, 2005). It has to be noted that the model of IT Governance in an organisation may also be dictated by external factors, such as SOX which promotes a centralized IT Governance model, while Australian governance frameworks (mainly, AS 8015) drive the organisations towards a de-centralized IT Governance model (Robb and Parent, 2009). IT Governance Frameworks Information Technology Infrastructure Library The Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) is a framework of best practices for IT Service Management. It is comprised of five books which focus on five different aspects of IT Service Management and Service Lifecycle: Service Strategy Service Design Service Transition Service Operation Continual Service Improvement Each one of the books, defines a set of processes such as IT Financial Management, Supplier Management, Change Management, Incident Management and Service Measurement and Reporting; a total of 23 processes are defined with a set of actions and roles required for each process. The definition of several of the processes and the subsequent roles is consistent with the IT Governance definition we used earlier; nevertheless a big amount of the defined processes such as event management and validation and testing, are much more focused on the management part than to that of the governance. ITIL is considered to be the framework that is closer to service management than control, from the other two frameworks, CobIT and ISO/IEC 38500:2008 and has a more narrow scope than CobIT (Van Grembergen and De Haes, 2009; Simonsson and Ekstedt, 2006; Simonsson, Johnson and Wijkstrà ¶m, 2007; Sallà ©, 2004; McBride, 2009). That focus of ITIL to service delivery and management was more obvious in version 2, which did not address issues such as Risk Management, Performance Monitoring and IT Governance (generic strategic direction and alignment) at all. As such it was mostly perceived as a framework for service desk management. Although the effectiveness of ITIL version 2 to the alignment of IT with business objectives has been repeatedly pointed out (BMC Software, 2007; Harris et al, 2008; Pultorak, 2006) and even experimentally proven (Kashanchi and Toland, 2006), it was never the primary driver for ITIL adaptation. A survey conducted by Bruton Consultancy for the Helpdesk Institute Europe (now renamed as Service Desk Institute) for the value that ITIL has brought in companies that have implemented it, indicated that the contribution of ITIL to the business strategy was not even considered as an issue by the majority of the correspondents (70%). The same holds for the perception of the participants on t he competitive advantage that may be provided by proper IT management through ITIL. More than half (66%) responded that this was not considered in the decision for ITIL implementation (Bruton, 2005). With version 3, ITIL gained a broader scope than version 2 and added significant emphasis on business strategy. That change, led some IT management consultants to declare ITIL version 3 as inappropriate for helpdesk and service management processes (Bruton, 2007), not strange since version 2 focused on processes while version 3 focuses on Business Value (Harris et al, 2008). Beyond the not strategic enough type of criticism, ITIL has also been criticised as a flawed and uneven framework. Dean Meyer identifies pitfalls in its implementation; nevertheless, he also states that it is an implementation issue and not a framework issue (Meyer, 2009 web site). ITIL has also been characterized as a too generic framework, which is not able to provide value if used off-the-shelf without significant adaptations (Baschab and Piot, 2007), an unfair criticism as ITIL is promoted as a set of best practices, not as a complete, fits-all framework. This concession should invalidate yet another criticism raised by Simonsson (2008), the lack of a maturity model. Another criticism of ITIL is that the documentation is not free (Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009). That is a valid point, nevertheless the cost of the books is quite low for companies (less than  £400 for the whole set). Other criticisms include the stifling of the creativity of those who implement it, and that it b ecomes a goal by itself having a heavy administrative burden (Addy, 2007). All these points are valid, but they can be attributed to the extension of ITIL. Control Objectives for Information and related Technology Control Objectives for information and related Technology (CobIT) is a control framework developed by the IT Governance Institute. CobIT defines processes and controls, and uses the grouping of activities in four domains: Plan and Organise Acquire and Implement Deliver and Support Monitor and Evaluate Each domain contains a set of processes, 34 at total, and each process defines specific controls, which sum up to 210 for all processes. CobIT defines inputs and outputs, as well as a maturity model for each process, making the control of compliance a very easy task. RACI (responsible, accountable, consulted and informed) charts are also provided, drawing a clear guideline on who should be involved in every process step. Goals and metrics, in the form of outcome measures (key goal indicators KGIs) and performance indicators (key performance indicators KPIs) respectively are also provided, mapping business goals to IT goals, which can be achieved by one, or the interaction of several processes. CobIT is generally used where there is a need for auditing functions, in comparison with ITIL, which is better suited to operational process improvement (ODonohue et al, 2009). In contrast to ITIL, CobIT has extensive documentation available free of charge, including the framework itself and several case studies. Several implementation documents though are only available for purchase, such as CobIT Quickstart, while others are available free for ISACA members or for purchase for non-members such as Security Baseline and User Guide for Service Managers. Several consultants and practitioners criticise CobIT that it only states the obvious, that it is very high level, is only a generic framework and does not provide specific and repeatable implementation steps (Culmsee, 2009; Toigo, 2005). This is not a common view, as others find CobIT to be quite prescriptive (Pultorak, 2006; Robb and Parent, 2009). That may be explained by the fact that although CobIT framework itself is indeed high level, a different publication is provided by ISACA, named CobIT Control Practices which is quite prescriptive. Academics criticise CobIT as providing little support for improved decision making, although many metrics are defined (Simonsson and Johnson, 2006). Others state that CobIT is expressed almost entirely in terms of process, focusing on how to govern but not what to govern (Lee et al, 2009). Another criticism states that CobIT is significantly more focused on auditing, largely ignoring other aspects of governance such as software development an d service delivery (NetFrontiers, 2005). CobIT is also characterized as a framework that needs significant knowledge and know how for a successful implementation (Simonsson et al, 2007), and that it takes time to introduce solid IT Governance through it (Rogers, 2009); although the opposite would be strange, given the wide area of processes and functions that CobIT addresses. Finally, while ITIL is known as the framework that guides you on how to get where you want to be, CobIT merely focuses on where you should be; that may be good or bad, depending on ones point of view and needs. ISO / IEC 38500:2008 The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) attempted to solve the confusion between IT Management and IT Governance, and at the same time provide guiding principles on IT Governance, in the recently published ISO/IEC 38500:2008. Because ISO/IEC 38500 establishes principles to guide the behaviour of organisations, it complements frameworks that focus on process, such as ITIL and COBIT. Thus, with the right frameworks or processes, complemented by the right behaviours, organisations are more likely to establish highly effective systems of governance. After all, it has been stated that ITIL and CobIT are not mutually exclusive; they are rather complementary and organisations will probably benefit from a mixed approach, adopting what is more applicable in every case, from the two frameworks (Chickowsky, cited at Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009). ISO/IEC 38500 can also be combined with these two and ITGI has even issued a specific document demonstrating how and which specific CobIT and ValIT controls support the adoption of the standards principles and implementation approach. Nevertheless, ISO/IEC 38500:2008 is very recent to be evaluated. As of the time of conducting this research, there is not enough information on the implementation, benefits or drawbacks of ISO 38500:2008. Common drivers for IT Governance implementation While the need for IT Governance has well been described, the benefits sought, i.e. the reasons for the implementation of an IT Governance framework vary, sometimes depending on the point of view of the observer. As drivers, we consider the motivator factors, which may lead an organisation to the implementation of an IT Governance framework. For IT Managers, IT Governance is a mechanism for the alignment of the IT with business on the projects that are going to be pursuit. For IT Auditors, it is mainly a control mechanism that can help them achieve compliance with regulations, and to manage the risks that are related to IT projects better. For IT Service management professionals, IT Governance ensures that not only the IT services offered are aligned to the current and future business needs, but they are also managed for efficiency, effectiveness and specific quality objectives (Pultorak, 2006). Recent surveys have indicated that the most important benefits expected from the implementation of an IT Governance framework are proper risk management, the resource management of IT, the performance measurement of IT and the business IT alignment. Along these, cost reduction, productivity improvements and organisation wide view of IT are commonly mentioned. (ITGI, 2008; BMC Software, 2007; Milne and Bowles, 2009; Yanosky and McCredie

Breakthroughs in Astronomy and Medicine in the 16th and 17th Centuries :: science

Breakthroughs in Astronomy and Medicine in the 16th and 17th Centuries It was during the 16th and 17th centuries when man's view of the unvierse and himself changed drastically. This came after a millenium of repetition and stagnation in the development of science. People finally began questioning what they were told, and they went out to find proof rather than assuming on the basis of authority and common sense. These advances in astronomy and medicine came about in the same era, and were not unparallel in their development. In both fields were some very notable people who contributed greatly to the devolopment in these areas. In the field of astronomy Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo shed Aristotle's, Plato's, and Ptolemy's views of the universe. In medicine Paraclesus, Vesalius, and Harvey did away with Galen's ancient practices. Ancient Greeks believed that the Earth was stationary, they concluded this by making some basic obsevations. One being that the Earth cannot be part of the 'heavens' because celestial bodies are bright points of light, whereas the Earth is a nonluminous sphere of mud and rock. Also in the heavens there is very little change, the same stars are there night after night, only five planets, the sun, and the moon. On Earth however things are constantly changing and reforming. Their senses also told them that the Earth wasn't moving. They believed that the air, the clouds, and the birds would all be left behind if the Earth spinning around, therefore it couldn't be moving. Also if the Earth were spinning everything would fly off due to the centrifugal force. It was thought that with all this evidence there was no way that the Earth could be moving. There were however a few descrepencies in this Earth stationary or geocentric view. The most apparent being the five planets. They moved unlike anything else, they moved contrary to the stars and occasionaly went backwards. Ptolemy was able to correct this by the use of epicycles. This said that not only do planets orbit the Earth, but they also have smaller circular moton which they perform during their orbit. This did solve the problem, but it was still imperfect and very complicated, it was un-Godlike. Nicolaus Copernicus believed in the heliocentric model of the universe. It was his belief that the sun was a copy of God, God gave us life and the sun kept us alive. Breakthroughs in Astronomy and Medicine in the 16th and 17th Centuries :: science Breakthroughs in Astronomy and Medicine in the 16th and 17th Centuries It was during the 16th and 17th centuries when man's view of the unvierse and himself changed drastically. This came after a millenium of repetition and stagnation in the development of science. People finally began questioning what they were told, and they went out to find proof rather than assuming on the basis of authority and common sense. These advances in astronomy and medicine came about in the same era, and were not unparallel in their development. In both fields were some very notable people who contributed greatly to the devolopment in these areas. In the field of astronomy Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo shed Aristotle's, Plato's, and Ptolemy's views of the universe. In medicine Paraclesus, Vesalius, and Harvey did away with Galen's ancient practices. Ancient Greeks believed that the Earth was stationary, they concluded this by making some basic obsevations. One being that the Earth cannot be part of the 'heavens' because celestial bodies are bright points of light, whereas the Earth is a nonluminous sphere of mud and rock. Also in the heavens there is very little change, the same stars are there night after night, only five planets, the sun, and the moon. On Earth however things are constantly changing and reforming. Their senses also told them that the Earth wasn't moving. They believed that the air, the clouds, and the birds would all be left behind if the Earth spinning around, therefore it couldn't be moving. Also if the Earth were spinning everything would fly off due to the centrifugal force. It was thought that with all this evidence there was no way that the Earth could be moving. There were however a few descrepencies in this Earth stationary or geocentric view. The most apparent being the five planets. They moved unlike anything else, they moved contrary to the stars and occasionaly went backwards. Ptolemy was able to correct this by the use of epicycles. This said that not only do planets orbit the Earth, but they also have smaller circular moton which they perform during their orbit. This did solve the problem, but it was still imperfect and very complicated, it was un-Godlike. Nicolaus Copernicus believed in the heliocentric model of the universe. It was his belief that the sun was a copy of God, God gave us life and the sun kept us alive.

Computer programming Essay

1. What common programming language statement, in your opinion, is most detrimental to readability and why do you think that? The go to statement in my opinion can be the most detrimental to program readability, because it makes it difficult to keep track of where the program has been and will go during debugging. Extensive use of go to statements make it difficult to impossible to keep the program code in a top down format. 2. How does the distinguishing between upper- and lowercase in identifiers affect the three criteria? The affect to readability can be positive when it is used in conjunction with a cohesive programming technique. The use of upper case letters to help certain types of identifiers stand out in the code can be highly beneficial. The affect on writability will be positive because the readability of a program helps to improve the writability. The affect on reliability will also be positive because the more readable, and writable a language then there is a positive affect on the reliability. 3. How do type declaration statements for simple variables affect the readability of a language? Having type declarations that are easy to understand are very important to the readability of a programming language. When the type declarations are cryptic or easily confused it degrades the readability because it is not as easy to identify the variable type or distinguish between them. 4. Write an evaluation of Java and of C++, using the criteria described in this chapter. Please be thorough and provide a reason/justification for your evaluation. C++ Readability: C++ is not an overall simple language which complicates its readability. It does however have very good control structures and data type structures which can help the readability. But in general it can be difficult to read. Writability: C++ allows for high levels of data abstraction, and expressivity’s in the language allowing the programmer to create a myriad of structures to solve different programming problems making it very writable. Reliability: C++ has extensive exception handling and type checking capabilities, which lead to a more reliable language. Java Readability: Java because it is a functional programming language, which is structured completely differently than all other common programming languages. All of the computations in Java are carried out by applying functions to arguments. Java does not have the assignment statements or variables common in other languages. Alone this causes enough of a problem with the readability of Java, but the syntax for Java is doubly ambiguous because the same exact syntax is used for both data and function calls. Writability: Java has a high amount of expressivity’s with the use of functions, but the difficulties that can be encountered in readability will affect the writability of the language. Reliability: Java does not have the extensive exception handling of C++. 5. Evaluate both Java and C++ with respect to the ultimate total cost (as discussed in Chapter 1 of the Sebesta text). Again, please be thorough and provide a reason/justification for your evaluation. The total cost of C++ is acceptable. C++ is a very complex language that for a programmer to learn completely can take well over a year, but a programmer can learn enough to make powerful programs in a relatively short time. The style constructs of C++ help to improve it’s maintainability over time which is a major component to the cost of software development. The total cost of Java is potentially more than that of C++. The functional programming environment is sufficiently different from all other imperative languages that training for programmers to learn and become proficient in Java can take longer. Also the syntax similarities with data will make maintenance costs for Java programs to be higher because of their poor readability. Readability. Requiring the declaration of variables forces the programmer to document his/her expectations regarding variable names, data types, and scope (the region of the program where the variable will be applicable). Thus, the program becomes much more readable to the programmer and to others. Writability. Requiring the declaration of variables may actually decrease writability in its most direct sense, since a programmer cannot simply use variables as needed, but must write declarations in their appropriate places to avoid error messages. This increased burden on the programmer can increase programming time. On the other hand, without declarations there can be no local variables, and the use of local variables can increase writability by allowing the programmer to reuse names without worrying about non-local references. Forcing the programmer to plan the use of variables may also improve writability over the long run. Efficiency. As we saw, readability and writability can be viewed as efficiency issues from the point of view of maintenance and software engineering, so the comments about those issues also apply here in that sense. The use of declarations may also permit more efficient implementation of the program. Without declarations, if no assumptions are made about the size of variables, less efficient access mechanisms using pointers must be used. Also, the programmer can use declarations to specify the exact size of variable needed (such as short int or long int). Restricting scope by using local variables can also save memory space by allowing the automatic deallocation of variables. Note, however, that Fortran is a very efficient language in terms of execution speed, so it is not always true that requiring declarations must improve execution speed. Also, speed of translation may actually be decreased by the use of declarations, since more information must be kept in tables to keep track of the declarations. (It is not true, as Fortran and BASIC attest, that without declarations a translator must be multi-pass.) Security. Requiring declarations enhances the translator’s ability to track the use of variables and report errors. A clear example of this appears in the difference between ANSI C and old-style Unix C. Early C did not require that parameters to functions be declared with function prototypes. (While not exactly variable declarations, parameter declarations are closely related and can be viewed as essentially the same concept.) This meant that a C compiler could not guarantee that a function was called with the appropriate number or types of parameters. Such errors only appeared as crashes or garbage values during program execution. The use of parameter declarations in ANSI C greatly improved the security of the C language. Expressiveness. Expressiveness may be reduced by requiring the declaration of variables, since they cannot then be used in arbitrary ways. Scheme, for example, while requiring declarations, does not require that data types be given, so that a single variable can be used to store data of any data type. This increases expressiveness at the cost of efficiency and security.

Cultural Leadership

CONTENTS 1. Introduction†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 2 2. Culture†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 3 Definition Dimensions of culture 3. Cultural leadership†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 8 Globalisation Global leadership behavior 4. Conclusions †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 9 5. References†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 10 1. Introduction Cultural leadership is a study in which I sumarry colected some related ideas about culture, leadership and the impact of culture on leadership process. The project is structurared in two chapters, follow by a conclusion and bibliography. The first chapter begins by defining culture and describing the dimensions of culture with specific examples in every aria. Determining the basic dimensions or characteristics of different cultures is the first step in being able to understand the relationships between them. Because it is an abstract term, the word culture it is hard to define, and different people often define it in dissimilar ways. A definition which captured my attention is one which defined culture as the learned beliefs, values, rules, norms, symbols, and traditions that are common to a group of people. It is these shared qualities of a group that make them unique. Culture is dynamic and transmitted to others. In short, culture is the way of life, customs, and script of a group of people. (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). Next, in the second chapter, I found it necesarry to talk about how leadership varies across cultures and which specific leadership attributes cultures universally endorse as desirable and undesirable. As individuals we have implicit beliefs and convictions about the attributes and beliefs that distinguish leaders from non-leaders and effective leaders from ineffective leaders. So, from the perspective of this theory, leadership is in the eye of the beholder. Leadership refers to what people see in others when they are exhibiting leadership behaviors. Because of that, I have presented in this chapter six types of leadership accepted worldwide based upon Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness –GLOBAL- Research Program. I chose this specific topic, because I am interested in the domains presented, culture and leadership, and I considered this occasion, like being a great opportunity to discover more information or facts regarding them. 2. Culture Definition Anthropologists, scientist, sociologists and many others have debated the meaning of the word culture. Because it is an abstract term, it is hard to define, and different people often define it in dissimilar ways. Below, I have tried to find out some definitions of culture as follows: Kroeber, A. L. , & Kluckhohn (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions :† Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i. e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, and on the other as conditioning elements of further action’’. Banks, J. A. & McGee (1989). Multicultural education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon: â€Å"Most social scientists today view culture as consisting primarily of the symbolic, ideational, and intangible aspects of human societies. The essence of a culture is not its artifacts, tools, or other tangible cultural elements but how the members of the group interpret, use, and perceive them. It is the values, symbols, interpretations, and perspectives that distinguish one people from another in modernized societies; it is not material objects and other tangible aspects of human societies. People within a culture usually interpret the meaning of symbols, artifacts, and behaviors in the same or in similar ways. † Linton, R. (1945, p. 32). The Cultural Background of Personality: â€Å"A culture is a configuration of learned behaviors and results of behavior whose component elements are shared and transmitted by the members of a particular society† From a business view, when leading a multicultural group, it is important to be aware of the norms, beliefs, and values that the participants bring with them to the setting. These norms, beliefs, and values not only shape identity but they also affect perceptions, attitudes and assumptions. These aspects of individuals and groups are typically not visible and yet, they are extremely important to take into consideration during the planning and facilitative processes. Other aspects of culture implies institution, religion, education, language, material culture and life-style. Dimensions of culture Hofstede (1994) identified four dimensions of culture: The first one, individualism versus collectivism, refers to how people define themselves and their relationships with others. In an individualist culture, the interest of the individual prevails over the interests of the group. Ties between individuals are loose. People look after themselves and their immediate families. For example, a student from Colombia may study in the United States and earn a Ph. D. , teach at a distinguished university, and publish important books, but when he returns to visit Colombia, people to whom he is introduced will want to know to whom he is related. Colombians want to know who his family is because that places him in society much more so than any of his accomplishments in the United States. Individualistic cultures like USA and France are more self-centered and emphasize mostly on their individual goals. This kind of cultures tend to think only of themselves as individuals and as â€Å"I† distinctive from other people. They define people by what they have done, their accomplishments, what kind of car they drive. Individualist cultures are more remote and distant. Collectivistic cultures have a great emphasize on groups and think more in terms of â€Å"we†. In China, for example it is out of question to disagree with someone’s opinion in public. You will do that in a more private and personal atmosphere to protect a person from the â€Å"loss of face†. In collectivistic cultures a direct confrontation will be always avoided. The second dimension that the author presents is the one which indicates the extent to which dominant values in a society tend to be assertive and look more interested in things than in concerning for people and the quality of life. â€Å"Masculinity is the opposite of femininity; together, they form one of the dimensions of national cultures. Masculinity stands for a society which social gender roles are dearly distinct: men are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. â€Å"Femininity stands for a society where gender roles overlap: both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life. † The Masculinity and Femininity dimension describes how cultures differentiate on not between gender roles. Masculine cultures tend to be ambitious and need to excel. Members of these cultures have a tendency to polarize and consider big and fast to be beautiful. In workplaces employees emphasize their work to a great extent (live in order to work) and they admire achievers who accomplished their tasks. Feminine cultures consider quality of life and helping others to be very important. The country which strives the most for maximal distinction between what women and men are expected to do, the culture that place high values on masculine traits stress assertiveness, competition, and material success is Japan, the last country being Sweden. The third dimension is power distance, or the way the culture deals with inequalities. Hofstede (1997,p. 28) defines power distance as â€Å"the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally†. Hofstede believes that power distance is learned early in families. In high power distance cultures, children are expected to be obedient toward parents versus being treated more or less as equals. In high power distance cultures, people are expected to display respect for those of higher status. For example, in countries such as Cambodia and Thailand, people are expected to display respect for monks by greeting and taking leave of monks with ritualistic greetings, removing hats in the presence of a monk, dressing modestly, seating monks at a higher level, and using a vocabulary that shows respect. In a high power distance culture, company bosses are â€Å"kings† and employees â€Å"loyal subjects† who don’t speak out. In the low power distance workplace, subordinates expect to be consulted, and ideal bosses are democratic. In more democratic organizations, leaders are physically more accessible. And finally, the last dimension is about uncertainty avoidance which expresses the deficit that people tolerate ambiguous situations and need formal rules. Uncertainty is â€Å"the extent to which the members of a culture fell threatened by uncertain or unknown situations. One of the dimensions of national cultures (from weak to strong). †. Some cultures need to have a strong uncertainty avoidance like France. In France many strict regulations are used and tasks are heavily centralized in companies and for meetings it is important to consider that. They are very careful with the details or any circumstances which could cause any kind of uncertainty for French business people. Germans and Finns have a less level of uncertainty avoidance and a medium level of power distance have the need for clearly specified competence to avoid uncertainty. They need specific procedures and distributions of tasks, instructions and rules. The co-ordination and control can be achieved through standardization and certification measurers. Americans and Chinese (Hong Kong) have a lower need for uncertainty avoidance and rather avoid too many rules and formalities. They are more likely to stimulate innovations and emphasize new ideas. They are more flexible and more acting than reacting on changes occurring inside and outside of business. In contrast cultures with very strong uncertainty avoidance display their emotions in the way that everything that is different, is dangerous. They resist in changes and worry about their future. 3. Cultural leadership Are leaders made or born? I think this is a question that most of us asked in a moment or another. In my opinion leaders are made but they must have some skills before that process too. If somebody have the desire and willpower, he can become an effective leader. Good leaders develop through a never ending process of self-study, education, training, and experience. To inspire your workers into higher levels of teamwork, there are certain things a leader must be, know, and, do. These do not come naturally, but are acquired through continual work and study. Good leaders are continually working and studying to improve their leadership skills. Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership attributes, such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills. We can affirm that culture is a long-term, complex phenomenon. Culture represents the shared expectations and self-image of the organization. The mature values that create â€Å"tradition† or the â€Å"way we do things here† because as we should know things are done differently in every organization. The collective vision and common folklore that define the institution are a reflection of culture. Individual leaders, cannot easily create or change culture because culture is a part of the organization. Culture influences the characteristics of the climate by its effect on the actions and thought processes of the leader. But, everything somebody dose as a leader will affect the climate of the organization. For instance, the cultural diversity of employees found in worldwide multinational organizations presents a substantial challenge with respect to the design of multinational organizations and their leadership. In my opinion, given the increased globalization of industrial organizations and increased interdependencies among nations, the need for better understanding of cultural influences on leadership and organizational practices is getting higher. Situations that leaders must face are highly complex, constantly changing, and difficult to interpret. More than ever before, managers of international firms face fierce and rapidly changing international competition. Globalization has also created the need for leaders to become competent in cross-cultural awareness and practice. Adler and Bartholomew (1992, p. 53) contend that global leaders need to develop five cross-cultural competencies. First, leaders need to understand business, political, and cultural environments worldwide. Second, they need to learn the perspectives, tastes, trends, and technologies of many other cultures. Third, they need to be able to work simultaneously with people from many cultures. Fourth, leaders must be able to adapt to living and communicating in other cultures. Fifth, they need to learn to relate to people from other cultures from a position of equality rather than cultural superiority. Additionally, global leaders need to be skilled in creating trans cultural visions. They need to develop communication competencies that will enable them to articulate and implement their vision in a diverse workplace. In sum, today’s leaders need to acquire a challenging set of competencies if they intend to be effective in present-day global societies. GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness) started a research program in order to describe how different cultures view leadership behaviors in others, and they identified six global leadership behaviors: charismatic/ value based, team oriented, participative, humane oriented, autonomous, and self-protective. These global leadership behaviors were defined as follows: Charismatic/value-based leadership reflects the ability to inspire, to motivate, and to expect high performance from others based on strongly held core values. This kind of leadership includes being visionary, inspirational, self-sacrificing, trustworthy, decisive, and performance oriented. Team-oriented leadership emphasizes team building and a common purpose among team members. This kind of leadership includes being collaborative, integrative, diplomatic and administratively competent. Participative leadership reflects the degree to which leaders involve others in making and implementing decisions. It includes being participative and non-autocratic. Humane-oriented leadership emphasizes being supportive, considerate, compassionate, and generous. This type of leadership includes modesty and sensitivity to people. Autonomous leadership refers to independent and individualistic leadership, which includes being autonomous and unique. Self-protective leadership reflects behaviors that ensure the safety and security of the leader and the group. It includes leadership that is self-centered, status conscious, conflict inducing, face saving, and procedural. Below, you have examples with leadership styles in different cultures: The countries from Eastern European have the idea of a leader which is moderately charismatic/value-based team-oriented, and people-oriented yet largely uninterested in involving others in the decision-making process. To sum up, this culture describes a leader as one who is highly autonomous, makes decisions independently, and is to a certain degree inspiring, team-oriented, and attentive to human needs. Quite different from the Eastern European countries, the Latin American countries place the most importance on team-oriented, charismatic/value based, and self-protective leadership and the least importance on autonomous leadership. As a fact ,those leaders tend to be moderately interested in people and their participation in decision making. An ideal example of leadership for the Nordic European countries is leadership that is highly visionary and participative while being somewhat independent and diplomatic. For these countries, it is less important that their leaders be people oriented or protective of their office. Nordic Europeans prefer leaders who are inspiring and involve others in decision making. They do not expect their leaders to be exceedingly compassionate, nor do they expect them to be concerned with status and other self-centered attributes. For countries in Africa, an ideal leader is modest, compassionate, and sensitive to the people. In addition, they believe a leader should be relatively charismatic/value-based, team oriented, participative, and self-protective. Leaders who act independently or act alone are viewed as less effective in these countries. In short, the African profile characterizes effective leadership as caring leadership. Like many other countries, these countries believe leaders should be inspirational, collaborative, and not excessively self-centered. Leaders who act autonomously are seen as ineffective in African countries. The leadership profile for the Middle Eastern countries differs significantly from the profiles of the other regions. Middle Eastern countries find self-attributes such as face saving and status are important characteristics of effective leadership. They also value being independent and familial. However, they find charisma, collaboration, and participative decision making less essential for effective leadership. To sum up, the Middle Eastern profile of leadership emphasizes status and face saving and de-emphasizes charismatic/value-based and group-oriented leadership. As we can see above, the dominant cultural norms endorsed by societal cultures induce global leader behavior patterns and organizational practices that are differentially expected and viewed as legitimate among cultures. Thus, the attributes and behaviors of leaders are, in part, a reflection of the organizational practices, which in turn are a reflection of societal cultures. 4. Conclusions After I have done this paper I realized that culture and leadership are like the two sides of the same coin. I believe that culture have a significant impact on leadership. First of all, culture shapes an individual ‘s self-definition of a leader through fundamental ideas about self and work. Second, the norms, values, beliefs or assumption an individual already learnt in the culture, makes him pass through cultural filters so that he perceive the world of work and leadership development different, meaning we don’t see the world through the same lens. We talked about culture, its definitions from different points of view, dimensions of culture and cultural leadership. Here we touched arias like: globalization, leadership’s styles accepted all over the world with regional examples. After all, the core of this project can be summarized in a couple of phrases, like the ones below. Leaders are immersed in their own societal culture, and they are most likely to enact the global leader behavior patterns that are favored in that culture. Founders influence the behavior of subordinate leaders and subsequent leaders by use of selective management selection criteria, role modeling, and socialization. Further, the dominant cultural norms endorsed by societal cultures induce global leader behavior patterns and organizational practices that are differentially expected and viewed as legitimate among cultures. Thus, the attributes and behaviors of leaders are, in part, a reflection of the organizational practices, which in turn are a reflection of societal cultures. At the present time, there is a greater need for effective international and cross-cultural collaboration, communication and cooperation, not only for the effective practice of leadership, but also for the betterment of the human conditions. As we view in this project, globalization has let its mark on the cultures of the world, which are getting more and more interconnected. As a conclusion, nowadays leaders should be encouraged or take initiative to reflect on their own values, see that multicultural differences exist and work to improve culture for all. 5. References Cultures and Organizations – Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival† Hofstede, Geert (1994) http://books. google. ro Cross-cultural approaches to leadership development by Clyde Brooklyn Derr http://www. cribd. com/doc/17743776/Nature-of-Culture-Its-Impact-on-Business http://www. via-web. de/conceptualization-of-culture/ http://www. ramergroup. com/pdfs/Concepts-of-Leadership. pdf http://www. online-leadership-tools. com/develop-leadership. html http://www. nwlink. com/~donclark/leader/leadcon. html :Concepts of Leadership http://www. thunderbird. edu/wwwfiles/sites/globe/pdf/process. pdf – Cultural Influences on Lea dership and Organizations: Project GLOBE ——————————————–