Critical Leadership Competencies Needed in 2020

Comment these answer :

What are the key leadership competencies that will be needed in leaders by 2020?

            The key leadership competency that will be needed in leaders by 2020 is the ability to be an effective communicator.   This competency is necessary because technology allows for organizations to be networked and outsourced. Therefore teams will not be in the same office building or even from the same country.

            What are the most significant leadership trends that require a change in leadership approaches by 2020?

            The most significant leadership trend that requires a change in leadership approach by 2020 is authenticity and caring.   Leaders must be real and leaders must care. Authenticity includes credibility and trust. Caring is important because if an employee doesn’t feel that a leader cares about them as a person or individual morale will be low and therefore productivity will decrease.

            What are some of the external trends (e.g., increased globalization, increased diversity, and increased use of technology) that will influence the leadership changes?

            External trends that will influence the leadership change are the use of technology. No longer are face-to-face meetings the norm. Conference calls, video conferencing and email have all transformed meetings. Technology is essential today and will be even more important in 2020.

            What will the employee of 2020 look like in terms of expectations, skills, and experience?

            The 2020 employee will have higher expectations, stronger skills and more work experiences. These terms are all required in order for stakeholder expectations to be met in 2020

The following commentary by Robert B. Reich was published on PROJECT SYNDICATE on April 23, 2020. Read the commentary and answer the questions that follow in your own words. Make sure that you answer each question in one paragraph, not exceeding 100 words.

Resurrect Antitrust

America’s Gilded Age in the late nineteenth century began with a raft of innovations – railroads, steel production, oil extraction – but culminated in mammoth trusts owned by “robber barons” who used their wealth and power to drive out competitors, and then to corrupt American politics.

We are now in a second Gilded Age – ushered in by semiconductors, software, and the Internet – and a handful of technology giants are the new robber barons. Facebook and Google now dominate the online advertising market, while the advertising revenue going to newspapers, network television, and other newsgathering agencies continues to decline.

Google also hosts two-thirds of all Internet searches in the United States, and is so dominant that “to google” has long since become a commonly used verb. In 2006, Google acquired the world’s largest video-hosting site, YouTube. And Facebook, for its part, has acquired more than 70 companies over roughly 15 years, including potential competitors like Instagram and WhatsApp.

Amazon, meanwhile, has become the first stop for one-third of all US consumers seeking to buy anything, including more than half of new books. Amazon’s scale translates into bargains for consumers, but it undermines supplier industries, including author royalties and publisher earnings.

This consolidation at the leading edge of the US economy has created three big problems. The first concerns economic power. Here, the issue is not the classic one of consumer prices being higher than they’d be under competitive conditions; it is that Big Tech is inhibiting innovation. The incumbents’ size, must-use platforms (owing to network effects), wall-to-wall patents and copyrights, and fleets of lawyers to litigate potential rivals into submission have allowed them to create formidable barriers to new entrants.

To be sure, large platforms like Amazon, Google, and Facebook have enabled creators to showcase and introduce new apps, songs, books, videos, and other content. But because of these platforms’ overwhelming bargaining power, they can take a large share of the profits. Partly as a result, the rate at which new job-creating businesses are formed in the US has fallen by half since 2004.

The second problem concerns political influence: massive concentrations of economic power tend to generate political clout that is easily abused. Because of its increasing size, the technology sector provides significant campaign contributions and maintains platoons of lobbyists and lawyers in Washington, DC. Google’s parent company, Alphabet, for example, is the one of the biggest lobbyists in the city.

All this power gets results: tax loopholes, subsidies, regulatory exemptions, and other forms of government largesse that is unavailable to smaller firms. Hence, in 2018, Amazon paid no federal taxes, even as it held an auction to extort billions of dollars from states and cities eager to host its second headquarters. The company has also forced Seattle, its main headquarters, to scrap a plan to tax big corporations. That revenue would have been used to pay for homeless shelters for a growing population that can’t afford sky-high rents caused, in part, by Amazon.

Big Tech’s political power also buys impunity. Facebook executives withheld evidence of malign Russian activity on their platform far longer than previously disclosed, but suffered no consequences. Perhaps more troubling,

they employed a political opposition-research firm to discredit their critics. How long will it be before Facebook uses its own data and platform against its opponents and competitors?

Google, too, has used its power to fend off criticism. It has quietly funded hundreds of university professors to write research papers justifying its market dominance, and it has threatened to cut funding to nonprofit think tanks that have criticized its economic and political power.

The third problem concerns social power: the control over the flows of communications on which people rely to understand the world. The most obvious example is the news itself. By refusing to take responsibility for the accuracy of what appears on their platforms, the Big Tech firms are actively enabling demagogues, hate-mongers, and con artists to exert unprecedented influence over society – perverting political discourse, encouraging bigotry, and even endangering children.

The tech companies’ defense is that they are not publishers, but merely the proprietors of platforms and algorithms. But this claim is belied by their platforms’ powerful network effects. The more people participate, the more necessary the platform becomes for everyone else. If people want to know what’s happening in the world, they increasingly have little choice but to engage with YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter.

Another aspect of Big Tech’s social power is its increasing capacity to pool and analyze data about all aspects of our lives, choices, and movements. This not only undermines our privacy; it challenges our very autonomy. Targeted advertising doesn’t merely respond to consumer needs and wants. It shapes our understanding of ourselves, our communities, and of the world.

These three forms of power – economic, political, and social – are rooted in Big Tech’s increasing dominance over markets, information, and communications. And that dominance is a function of these companies’ size and scope.

America responded to abuses of corporate power in the Gilded Age with antitrust laws that allowed the government to break up concentrated economic power. It is time to use antitrust again. Where breaking up Big Tech companies is impractical, those firms should at least be required to make their proprietary technology and data publicly available, and to share their platforms with smaller competitors.

Such measures would impose few costs on the economy, given that these giants rely on scale rather than innovation. Moreover, the benefits of reducing Big Tech’s concentrated power would be significant. More competition would reduce the major platforms’ market leverage and political clout. It would also give people more choice about how to receive reliable information, and greater control over which aspects of their personal lives they share.

In the second Gilded Age, as in the first, giant firms at the center of the US economy are distorting its market and its politics. Just as the problem is the same, so is the solution.

QUESTIONS:

1. In what ways have Google and Facebook become dominant in the technology sector?
2. How have the Big Tech created barriers to entry and consolidated their market power?

3. What has been the impact of the bargaining power of large platforms on new job-creating businesses?

4. Define the network effects and the positive network externalities. [Refer to Chapter 4 of our textbook here.] Explain why people all over the world would rely increasingly on YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter to reach the information?

5. What would be the new ways of dealing with the monopoly power attained by the Big Tech? [Refer to Chapter 10 of our textbook here.]

Required information

[The following information applies to the questions displayed below.]

Warnerwoods Company uses a periodic inventory system. It entered into the following purchases and sales transactions for March.

For specific identification, the March 9 sale consisted of 60 units from beginning inventory and 420 units from the March 5 purchase; the March 29 sale consisted of 100 units from the March 18 purchase and 180 units from the March 25 purchase.

4. Compute gross profit earned by the company for each of the four costing methods. (Round your average cost per unit to 2 decimal places and final answers to nearest whole dollar.)

[The following information applies to the questions displayed below.]

Warnerwoods Company uses a perpetual inventory system. It entered into the following purchases and sales transactions for March.

4. Compute gross profit earned by the company for each of the four costing methods. For specific identification, the March 9 sale consisted of 90 units from beginning inventory and 220 units from the March 5 purchase; the March 29 sale consisted of 70 units from the March 18 purchase and 110 units from the March 25 purchase. (Round weighted average cost per unit to two decimals and final answers to nearest whole dollar.)

The following information applies to the questions displayed below.]

Warnerwoods Company uses a perpetual inventory system. It entered into the following purchases and sales transactions for March.

4. Compute gross profit earned by the company for each of the four costing methods. For specific identification, the March 9 sale consisted of 90 units from beginning inventory and 220 units from the March 5 purchase; the March 29 sale consisted of 70 units from the March 18 purchase and 110 units from the March 25 purchase. (Round weighted average cost per unit to two decimals and final answers to nearest whole dollar.)

Required information

[The following information applies to the questions displayed below.]

Warnerwoods Company uses a perpetual inventory system. It entered into the following purchases and sales transactions for March.

4. Compute gross profit earned by the company for each of the four costing methods. For specific identification, the March 9 sale consisted of 95 units from beginning inventory and 225 units from the March 5 purchase; the March 29 sale consisted of 75 units from the March 18 purchase and 115 units from the March 25 purchase. (Round weighted average cost per unit to two decimals and final answers to nearest whole dollar.)

[The following information applies to the questions displayed below.]

Warnerwoods Company uses a perpetual inventory system. It entered into the following purchases and sales transactions for March.

4. Compute gross profit earned by the company for each of the four costing methods. For specific identification, the March 9 sale consisted of 50 units from beginning inventory and 180 units from the March 5 purchase; the March 29 sale consisted of 30 units from the March 18 purchase and 70 units from the March 25 purchase. (Round weighted average cost per unit to two decimals and final answers to nearest whole dollar.)

Based on my understanding of nursing today, Healthy People 2020 could be used by me in many ways to make a difference in the health and wellness of people in my area. The area that I intend to specialize in once I am a Registered Nurse is mental health. Healthy People 2020 has a lot of information regarding mental health. It can be used as additional resources for people who are seeking information regarding mental health. Based upon readings and research that I have completed mental health is a growing yet deprived field of resources. I will be there to serve as a resource and a advocate for my patients to assure they are provided with all the proper resources to assist with whatever mental disorder they have been diagnosed with. Becoming a a advocate for those of my community/area is important to me because often time African Americans and other minority groups are those who lack proper resources to health care and getting the help they need. I especially want to help those who are between the ages of 12 and up and because this is the next generation who will have to care for us.

Do you agree with her statement yes or no?