See MonsenR. JosephJr., Modern American Capitalism: Ideologies and Issues (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1963), p. 142, for a more complete study of American businessmen's political postures.
2.
See HigginsBenjamin, Economic Development (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1959), particularly pp. 3–213.
3.
SingerH. W., International Development: Growth and Change (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964), pp. 73–85.
4.
Discussed in detail in FarmerR. N.RichmanBarry M., Comparative Management and Economic Progress (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1965), pp. 109–237.
5.
KoontzHaroldO'DonnellCyril, Principles of Management (3rd ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964), pp. 69–202537–625.
6.
Ibid., pp. 430–444.
7.
The author has for years been accused of being “unfair” in grading and testing students from less developed countries. Further discussion with the foreign student usually reveals that what is considered “unfair” is the whole grading system, not the specific incident. Many foreign students feel it “unfair” to evaluate their status on a continuing basis. American students, even those from the upper classes, are resigned to this system.
8.
In the modern welfare corporate state, it is relatively rare to find such a man fired. More likely he will be pushed aside into a relatively innocuous slot where his (limited) talents will still serve the corporation. See SvensonArthur L., “An Augean Stable—The Case of Management Featherbeds,”California Management Review, V:4 (Summer 1963), 17–22.
9.
PowellReed M., “Elements of Executive Promotion,”California Management Review, VI:2 (Winter 1963), 83–90.
10.
AllenLouis A., “Leaders Who Fail Their Companies,”Business Horizons, VIII:2 (Summer 1965), 79–86.
