Book: Winning Now, Winning Later: How Companies Can Succeed in the Short Term While Investing for the

Long Term by David M. Cote (2020)

Turn in a 2-3 single-spaced pages (approximately 1000 – 1200 words) critique for your assigned strategy book.

In your critique of the book identify at least three key points that you think will be valuable to you now or in the

years to come. Additionally, identify what parts, if any, of the book you felt were less valuable to you,

addressing why. Discuss (be thorough) how you have seen and/or applied these management concepts/tools

in your own organizations or how you might apply/use these ideas/concepts/tools to your organization in the

future.

Sample Solution

chanisms, few avenues were open to the discussion of moral virtues and values in terms of finances. Only a limited set of norms, such as austerity, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, has been mentioned. The audit and report instruments were preferred for the financial information as they exercise accountability “through control or ex post” rather than “through scrutiny or ex ante” (Lastra and Shams, 2000: 7). Several methods exist to address uncertainties and risks involved with long time horizons, such as compound interest rates and the time value of money, also devoted to the dominant usage of managerial accountability mechanisms in the public finance sector. 4. NEGLECTED FUTURE CITIZENS IN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS 4-1. Analytical frameworks on democratic accountability To fill the gap between concept and conceptual framework, the public administration literature is still making efforts to develop a better framework for “more democratic forms of accountability” (Christie, 2017: 84). Democratic accountability is deeply rooted in the context of representative democracy in which citizens hold politicians and executives accountable for their actions, maintaining complex arrangements among the public and their representative bodies. Starting from the Friedrich’s (1940) argument on political accountability, the term “democratic accountability” broadened the concept as a public agency’s accountability environment in democratic governance (Behn, 2001). This further links to the concept of “public accountability,” which is generally used to imply “good intentions, loosely defined concepts, and vague images of good governance” (Bovens, 2006: 7). Public accountability is a vital part of democratic governance. It provides “a unique set of public missions and norms such as representation, equality, impartiality, integrity, justice, and citizenship” to governance in the public domain (Haque, 2000: 610). In democratic governance, democratic accountability is “an extremely important type of public accountability within democracies” exercised along the chain of delegation relationships (Bovens, 2006: 16). In addition, it is worth mentioning that new forms of democratic governance are emerging which stress the relationship between citizens and public decision makers. As such, the following section explores existing analytical frameworks of democratic accountability with three primary values: responsiveness, inclusiveness, and equity. This will help form a basis of the conceptual framework applicable to the future dimension of democratic accountability. Responsiveness Romzek and Dubnick (1987) referred to political accountability relation as the relationship between a representative (the public administrator) and one’s constituents (those to whom the