Why carbon property is tetravalency are failed
Answers
Answered by
0
tetravalency refers to the presence of 4 electrons in outermost orbits
Answered by
0
Hey friend nice question
In by small percentages but by orders of magnitude. His fundamental idea was to break work up into a series of small tasks, each to be done by a specialist skilled in one task. The advantages came from the increased skill of each individual worker repeatedly doing the same task, the saving of time lost passing from one species of work to another and to the invention of a great number of machines that facilitated labor, thus enabling one person to do the work of many.
Today's modern businesses operate under the same fundamental principle: the division and simplification of work, which can utilize workers with fewer skills. Management of this work evolved the same way. As the chains of small tasks became longer, management divided into smaller, decentralized divisions to oversee it. But over many years of expansion, more steps were needed in the chain and, thus, more specialized workers. The larger the company, the more required steps and more required management. The complexity of the whole system fragmented work tasks, which led to more management to control it. Nonetheless, this is the structure of U.S. business, and to abandon it goes against a manager's basic understanding of business.
This is also true of Frederick Taylor's 19th-century philosophy. Taylor was another pioneer of scientific management in the machine age. He promoted separation of planning (management) from execution (workers). Good management, he believed, was the art of smoothly transferring executives' ideas to workers' hands. He even went so far as to say, "Any change the workers make to the plan is fatal to success." The fundamental concepts of Smith and Taylor are etched in stone; there is no other knowledge base, no other experience. No wonder implementing the kind of change required to compete in the new environment is so difficult, and the difficulty is compounded by the fact that very few managers who attempt change understand what it really means in the context of quality improvement.
The ideas promoted by these men of vision were appropriate in their time and helped realize great advances in productivity, but they are not appropriate now. In contrast, consider that Japan is not saddled with the ghosts of outmoded work paradigms. Their philosophy of business management is based on the teachings of Walter Shewhart, Peter Drucker and W. Edwards Deming, all U.S. quality pioneers of the 20th century. Japan has used the philosophies of these men to establish a new benchmark in performance. The hallmark features of this new performance standard are:
* Outstanding quality.
Hope this helps you
In by small percentages but by orders of magnitude. His fundamental idea was to break work up into a series of small tasks, each to be done by a specialist skilled in one task. The advantages came from the increased skill of each individual worker repeatedly doing the same task, the saving of time lost passing from one species of work to another and to the invention of a great number of machines that facilitated labor, thus enabling one person to do the work of many.
Today's modern businesses operate under the same fundamental principle: the division and simplification of work, which can utilize workers with fewer skills. Management of this work evolved the same way. As the chains of small tasks became longer, management divided into smaller, decentralized divisions to oversee it. But over many years of expansion, more steps were needed in the chain and, thus, more specialized workers. The larger the company, the more required steps and more required management. The complexity of the whole system fragmented work tasks, which led to more management to control it. Nonetheless, this is the structure of U.S. business, and to abandon it goes against a manager's basic understanding of business.
This is also true of Frederick Taylor's 19th-century philosophy. Taylor was another pioneer of scientific management in the machine age. He promoted separation of planning (management) from execution (workers). Good management, he believed, was the art of smoothly transferring executives' ideas to workers' hands. He even went so far as to say, "Any change the workers make to the plan is fatal to success." The fundamental concepts of Smith and Taylor are etched in stone; there is no other knowledge base, no other experience. No wonder implementing the kind of change required to compete in the new environment is so difficult, and the difficulty is compounded by the fact that very few managers who attempt change understand what it really means in the context of quality improvement.
The ideas promoted by these men of vision were appropriate in their time and helped realize great advances in productivity, but they are not appropriate now. In contrast, consider that Japan is not saddled with the ghosts of outmoded work paradigms. Their philosophy of business management is based on the teachings of Walter Shewhart, Peter Drucker and W. Edwards Deming, all U.S. quality pioneers of the 20th century. Japan has used the philosophies of these men to establish a new benchmark in performance. The hallmark features of this new performance standard are:
* Outstanding quality.
Hope this helps you
baggy:
mark as brainlest
Similar questions