Question

ARE WE STUDYING FOR ANY PARTICULAR REASON?!

I have now reached that point in my ACCA studies where to quit, would be to have wasted many, many hours of my life, as well as money. However, my motivation is still very much burning brightly, so I actually, have no real desire to give up. There are times, however, when I am, at best, left wondering, "Eh, what?!"

I am currently crawling my way through the academic treacle that is Strategic Business Leader; a module that I'm sure all others will attest, is no less crushingly dull, boring, and sole destroying as all the other previous ones. Anyway, I am putting myself through this particular printed form of self-harm via Self Study, and Kaplan Books. The textbook is, of course, laced with all the usual grammatical, numerical and printing errors that all Kaplan customers have now, sadly become used to, but it's one of the lines in the book that particularly stands out to me.

At the end of the Change Management chapter, it touches upon the concept of Talent Management, and under the book's 'key elements of talent management' it lists one of those elements as 'recruiting staff based on potential and cultural fit, rather than past experience and qualifications'.

If this is indeed, the case, why, in the name of all that is holy have I, and all of the other ACCA students had to go through all of the other previous modules to be told this - not to mention this one, and all of the others that we will also have to complete? Indeed, why are we bothering at all?! The fact that this is also stated on the LAST PAGE of the book is surely, also particularly cruel. The book does go some way to explaining this. In one chapter, for example, it does whine on, and on about the modern contradiction that is 'diversity', (as we all have to these days, of course). However, as a white, British male, I'm pretty sure that I don't 'culturally fit' in anywhere, anymore,(especially Britain), and I would obviously never be brave enough to even suggest it. As such, qualifications and experience are the only real routes in to this, or any other profession. And as for potential, what else are we supposed to use, other than qualifications/experience?

So what is this all about - is this just yet more woke nonsense like all the rest of it, or is there something here that I am missing?

If anyone want's to discuss this directly with me, please feel free to at regentscourtaccounting@yahoo.co.uk

Thank you.

Answer 1

Oh yeah
vicks.raza@gmail.com
+923022150335

Answer 2

hey Alan,i have attempt 2 times for SBL paper,and currently this is my third.attempt to pass this paper.So i hope,i give clear understanding on how SBL papers structure and clear guide to pass.(based on my revison class and study hehe).So,if you are sitting on professional paper especially SBL the paper is more concern on the way you answer it,which is ,technical and writing skills and not just based on kaplan books.SBL papers questions is more broad and wide.Book knowledge is to help and guide us to understand the framework and apply to the case study.I think practice a lot of past year papers and specimen papers on acca exam resources helps a lot:).Besides,regarding of your concerns on  'key elements of talent management' it lists one of those elements as 'recruiting staff based on potential and cultural fit, rather than past experience and qualifications'.In my point of view,not all company is public listed company which have proper corporate governance and board of director structure.There are family business and small medium company which hire only family members or same race/culture only.Plus,there might be fill in the position of directors which have no qualifications/experienced to satisfy the needs of shareholders.For example,in Korea most of the big companies are inherit to their children(eventhough it is public listed) and it called chaebol  (in South Korea) a large family-owned business conglomerate.You can refer to specimen exams SBL from september 2018(Nehby company)board of director structure.In addition,there are non executive directors(NED) which are engaged part time by the organisation to bring relevant independent,external input and scutiny to the board and typically occupy positions in the commitee structure.So, anyone could  be NED.In sbl,there are explanations the difference between NED and ED(executive directors).executive directors are full time members of staff and part of the executive structure and they should have proper qualifications and knowledge that relevant to their roles. In conclusion,it is based on case study and strategic position of the company.My suggestion is,go watch hassan dosani videos for sbl papers.Lecturers and videos helps more to visualized and depth understanding for each chapter.Hope this would you.Have a nice day:)