Located in Brussels, Belgium, the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) is a global non-profit organization focused on researching, networking, and information sharing within the field of management development. The group comprises more than 750 member organizations representing academia, the public interest, business, and consulting in more than 80 countries.
Members of EFMD enjoy many benefits, such as the connection to a vast global network. Through this network, members can share and discuss their experiences and learn more about best practices. Belonging to EFMD also brings access to a wide variety of the latest and most relevant information through the non-profit’s website, the Global Focus magazine, and organization-sponsored events. In addition, EFMD gives members the use of quality improvement tools, including the Corporate Learning Improvement Process (CLIP) and Technology-Enhanced Learning (CEL).
About the author: An educator and financial expert, Dr Antonios Antoniou possesses a Bachelor of Arts in Economics, a Master of Science in Accounting and Finance, and a Doctorate in Applied Economics. Dr Antoniou is the Chief Executive Officer of Financial Research, Training & Consulting, LLP (FRT&C).
Dr. Antonios (Tony) Antoniou is an expert in business and finance and achieved recognition in Jean I. Heck and Philip L. Cooley’s study, “Most Prolific Authors in the Finance Literature: 1959 – 2008.” Amid Dr. Antonios Antoniou’s research interests is the question of how economics can be used in conflict resolution.
In 2005, Robert J. Aumann and Thomas C. Schelling won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences when they used economic game theory to study conflicts such as wars, wage negotiations, trade, and even organized crime.
Game theory, which is sometimes called interactive decision theory, explores how agents in conflict make decisions when their choices are interdependent, and predicts actions based on what each agent believes the other agent will do.
Schelling’s book, The Strategy of Conflict, proposed game theory as an effective way to understand conflict in the context of the nuclear arms race in the late 1950s. Aumann later built on Schelling’s ideas to explore what game theory can reveal about longer term relations. Game theory has become a dominant strategy for understanding and predicting conflict in a range of contexts.
Antonios “Tony” Antoniou is the chief executive officer of Financial Research, Training & Consulting, LLP. Over the course of his career, Antonios Antoniou has established himself as a highly effective manager and business leader.
Although the concepts of management and leadership share many of the same characteristics, there are a number or key differences between them. Successful managers must demonstrate the ability to execute a strategic plan by dividing it into small pieces and distributing tasks among team members. Managers must also establish processes and procedures to guide a team and anticipate needs that may arise in the future.
While management deals primarily with the execution of tasks and the delegation of responsibilities, leadership involves less tangible attributes such as honesty, integrity, and inspiration. The best leaders help their teams perform to their maximum potential and communicate the details of projects effectively. When necessary, leaders must be able to challenge established procedures and think outside the box, always searching for the most efficient way to achieve their objectives.
The chief executive officer of Financial Research, Training & Consulting, LLP, Antonios “Tony” Antoniou spent the better part of 15 years as a professor of finance and economics at Brunel University and Durham University. During his time in academia, Antonios Antoniou taught courses in several areas of global finance.
In the wake of rapid globalization occurring over the past several decades, winners and losers have emerged in regions throughout the world. Perhaps no group has benefited more from globalization than the so-called “global middle class,” which includes emerging economies such as those of China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia. While the top 1 percent of the world’s earners have seen significant gains from globalization, those at the bottom of the economic ladder have seen their situation in the world economy worsen.
According to economist Branko Milanovic, ensuring shared prosperity must involve high growth rates among nations at the bottom, which has already occurred in places such as India and China. Milanovic also suggests a global wealth redistribution plan, although efforts to date have been unenthusiastic at best. Finally, Milanovic contends that free migration of labor would allow people the chance to prosper, regardless of where they end up.
Tony Antoniou and his co-authors point out that investors’ portfolios generally contain more domestic than international stocks, even though it is better in theory to diversify. Known as home bias, the principle holds that investors prefer local stocks, as diversifying internationally is believed to entail additional risks such as exchange rate risk and restrictions on capital flows.
Despite these limitations, the call to obtain international diversification benefits led to the development of country/regional funds. Furthermore, more foreign companies have listed on stock exchanges in developed markets, and multinational stocks are often listed in domestic markets. This has produced an environment where some international diversification benefits can still be derived.
Using better estimation methods and creating local diversification portfolios that imitated foreign equity indices, the study showed that there were actually no significant benefits to having an internationally diversified portfolio. A diversified local portfolio can produce results that are similar to an internationally diversified one.
Former professor Antonios “Tony” Antoniou has dedicated much of his career to teaching students about finance and economics. Antonios Antoniou now serves as CEO of Financial Research, Training & Consulting, LLP. He has particular interest in topics that answer how economics is used in conflict resolution.
As an economics concept, negotiating consists of complex discussions and compromise to an agreement. There are two types of negotiations, distributive and integrative. The latter takes a win-win approach, in which all parties make decisions that are equally beneficial to all. Integrative negotiation, also known as collaborative or transformative, can include non-monetary benefits and trades that help balance a deal’s final outcome.
Conversely, distributive negotiation results in one party receiving more than another, thus creating winners and losers. This is basically a zero-sum game, which means no additional factors can be considered or offered.
For example, an integrative negotiation regarding budget cuts may result in all parties agreeing to take a minor loss in order to avoid major financial strain to a single party. However in distributive negotiation, no party would agree to these terms. Rather than yielding a loss for all involved, negotiations would continue until one side successfully achieves a more beneficial outcome for itself.
Dr. Antonios (Tony) Antoniou has worked as CEO at Finance, Research, Training and Consulting (FRT-C) and Wealth Associates. Dr. Antonios Antoniou has several academic degrees in the study of economics, including a PhD in applied economics.
An issue that influences the success of today’s businesses, and by extension economies, is defining leadership as opposed to management. The most significant difference between leaders and managers can perhaps be summed up in the examination of how each motivates those they lead. Leaders tend to make new goals for their teams, while managers usually conform to existing standards.
A common trait among leaders is the ability to inspire and influence others to contribute to a common goal of success. Managers, on the other hand, are more apt to focus on the output of work, which centers on coordinating employees and resources to accomplish set tasks.
Leaders are more likely to influence employees with a set of principles, while managers tend to gravitate toward the enforcement of policies. Leaders also are more apt to instigate change in an organization, and managers usually try to simply contain the possibility of risk.