In my everyday life how do I measure success and failure Essay

The aim of this paper is to discuss how to measure success and failure in everyday life. The evaluation of the social concept of success should start with acknowledging that social definition of success varies from culture to culture and even from one social group to another. In other words, every society has its own belief about what social success is. For example, if a person drives a 2007 Jaguar and lives in a nice house, he or she is regarded as successful by society norms. People are trying to move up the social ladder because the society is placing a lot of pressure on them to belong to the highest class possible. Government uses the relationship between social class (lower, middle, and upper) to suggest that society is equally just. Growing up in the city, I could witness stereotypical views of low income families. I could witness people being discriminated because they didn’t have nice suits or dresses, and their vocabulary was not equal to or better than the person they were talking to. Sometimes the idea of social success puts too much pressure on people so they sometimes forget their morals and values. The problem is all they want to do is to reach new social status because that is what society has led them to believe and what society expects of them. My grandfather often cited a southern saying that reads as follows: â€Å"Money is the root of all evil. † Through the years I often wondered if he was correct. Society describes lower class as government assisted or a troublesome group of people. Hanratty and Meditz stated that â€Å"[i]n contrast, the masses were composed of the illiterate and the impoverished who lived on the margin of subsistence and possessed little or no security, skill, or stable employment. † I disagree with Hanratty and Meditz statement: most lower class people do have work-related skills and are literate. In a lower class neighborhood at a local barber shop there are always conversations about how the upper class is destroying the lower class, and why lower class people cannot integrate into the mainstream society. Some would say that their major obstacle on the way to social success is fear or ability to adapt to change. Lower class is aware that they are labeled; however, they are determined to be a driving force in society. The stereotype of a successful family implies that a husband and a wife have an income that allows them to live in a nice neighborhood. Society would classify that family as middle class. Samuelson writes that â€Å"[c]ompounding the stress, the price of entry into the middle class is always rising. The more we can have, the more we must have. Keeping up with the Joneses is the curse of our advances and ambitions† (19). The problem with middle class and the problem of trying to belong there is that the upper class considers itself middle class at times. It forces hard-working middle class people to work harder, often taking on two jobs to maintain their social status. Some upper class people continue to downplay their status as middle class. That would put pressure on truly middle class people to stay (or even move up) in the social status. Expectation of what society requires of the middle class often puts pressure on the middle class to advance. Being born into wealth has been the only way to integrate in the upper class. Today the upper class is comprised of a diverse group of people unlike years before when the rich just had to travel and throw socials. The perception of upper class as seen on television is sometimes different from reality, as the rich have large amounts of money and can abuse their power. The rich are excuse from a lot of mishaps, while the middle and lower class would have not received the same treatment. Domhoff writes that â€Å"[f]rom infancy through young adulthood, members of the upper class receive a distinctive education. This education begins early in life in preschools that frequently are attached to a neighborhood church of high social status. Schooling continues during the elementary years at a local private school called a day school. Higher education will be obtained at one of a small number of heavily endowed private universities. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford head the list, followed by smaller Ivy League schools in the East and a handful of other small private schools in other parts of the country† (24). The upper class continues to work hard on staying on top: they put pressure on themselves and their children to stimulate them to stay in the same social class. What we as society fail to realize is that success comes from within. In every culture there are social problems that result from being in a certain situation. Everybody has their own definition of what success is; definitions of success range from being rich, driving a fancy car, and living in a big house to simply being in good health and having a stress-free life. I have read a lot of articles through the years on what it takes to be successful and I stil.

Patient and Professional Development Assignment Essay

There is considerable evidence that many of the new medical technologies are used inappropriately, to generate income. What patient protections against inappropriate diagnostic and other procedures should be considered? There is no doubt that the new diagnostic and therapeutic technology now available has vastly expanded the economic dimensions of medicine, there is evidence that new and expensive technologies are being used inappropriately to generate income. One example of this statement would be the use of magnetic resonance imaging or MRIs. The popularity of this testing has skyrocketed and has in turn been found to be very profitable for hospitals and outpatient facilities. Despite the swooping popularity and booming financial boost this testing has been found not to have changed patient outcomes. The testing gives providers a clear look at the disease or anatomy being scanned there are no controlled comparisons of diagnostic accuracy or changes in medical or therapeutic care for patients (Sultz and Young, 2011). Therefore this new and innovative testing only adds to the cost of the already terribly high dollar of health care. Physicians now have many choices to make and many opportunities to generate income through the use of these and many more new technologies both in the office and hospital settings. The issue is that medical indications for the use of much of the new technology are not precisely causing problems and susceptible influence by economic factors. The range of acceptable options in a given case is often wide enough to give the provider considerable latitude in his/her choice of procedures. It is in this gray zone that economic incentives have their greatest effect on medical behavior (Relman,  2011). I do not believe that providers make decisions based on economic consideration and outcome that they would not decide otherwise. I believe with all of my heart that for the most part providers do things the majority of the time to do right by the patient and the pocketbook. The problem is, however, â€Å"the right thing† is often a matter of opinion because many tests, procedures, and operations have not yet been fully evaluated or scientifically compared with other available measures for cost effectiveness. Is it possible though pressure of financial advantage often sways those good-hearted providers or is it simply to pacify or satisfy patients? To expand on pacification or satisfaction or patients I will use my area of expertise. I have worked in the area of women’s health most of my career so though I am sure there are other areas of specialty with patients such as ours I can only state from true experience that this is a very high-maintained population. This is a media savvy, device driven; patient population that often wants â€Å"drive-thru† service. The issues I see to often are the ordering of tests, labs, procedures that may be unnecessary or cause greater consequence. There are high-technology screenings for every atypical cell we could possibly have on a female reproductive organ. As soon as a pre-menopausal women with heavy bleeding hears that she may have a positive result she wants a hysterectomy. Though this may be the treatment for some, it is not for all a nd I see way too many women loose their uterus for reasons that were much more benign than the outcome. Being in healthcare for so many years I could give example after example of new high technology that may be used inappropriately for reasons that could be generating income, but done simply for the benefit of the patient and their satisfaction. Patient satisfaction brings a whole new topic of conversation to generating income. So how can we protect patients from potentially themselves or those that provide the ordering power that initiates this vicious cycle? I think first we have to mandate facilities and practices to put in place guidelines and protocols to stop unnecessary testing that has been shown not to change the patient outcome. Another intervention and protection to patients is that providers have to have conversations with patients honestly about what the issue is and that they do not need particular testing if asked for. They need to keep it real with patients. It is true that patient satisfaction is going to be at jeopardy  and that they may want to jump providers, but providers and facilities will need to seriously look at the risk benefit of doing procedures that will not weigh up in a court of law or a court of public opinion. In spite of nursing’s vital importance to hospitals, nurses face excessive paperwork, managerial responsibilities, and supervision of lesser-trained aides — tasks that require an inordinate amount of time spent in functions other than direct patient care. These frustrations, combined with long work hours, stagnant salaries, and other difficulties, have resulted in fewer entrants to schools of nursing and increasing numbers of nurses leaving the profession. Discuss possible solutions to this growing problem. Do providers in the health care system recognize a broader social mission than addressing the needs of only those individuals who achieve access to their services? Elaborate. Relman, A. (2011). Cost control, doctors’ ethics, and patient care. Retrieved from http://www.issues.org/19.4/updated/relman.pdf.

Magical Urbanism

1.‘Magical Urbanism’ is the term that Mike Davis uses to describe the situation of the Latinos in urban America.   They have moved into the United States and immediately formed subgroups of their own within established cities, and yet unlike other minority ethnic groups their numbers are growing in size and they are developing the ability to seriously affect politics of not only their current country of residence but Mexico by way of California and New York.   Magical urbanism is the power of these minority groups to grow and become capable of such social influence while being comprised of poverty stricken citizens who as individuals have little influence over local or state affairs. 2.Immigrants tend to be poor because of the social factors that are inflicted on them at the time of arrival in their new country of residence.   Like in the case of Latinos in America, immigrants can find themselves without an established social support structure based on family and friends.   Networks like these are important to everyone, regardless of citizenship status.   You need a network of employer references, rental accommodation references, credit references, and failing all of those, close relatives and friends who can support you until you have achieved all of these things anew in a different nation. 3.Lack of Opportunity:   We are raised to believe that opportunity is everywhere around us; that all we need to do is reach out and grab it with both hands.   When it comes to immigrants, however, it isn’t so simple.   These people can come to the United States with very few resources from which to both identify and make use of the opportunities for success that are clear to those of us who have grown up here and understand the social system.   This factor can be identified as part of the ‘culture of poverty’, as it is inherent in virtually all immigrant groups everywhere. Hard Work:   Hard work; it’s what you expect to do to climb the ladder of social success in any city.   Money and quality of life does not come of idleness, and for people of minority status this is no secret.   The national spirit suggests that all you need to do is work hard, and you will be able to achieve your dreams – this is not exactly the case with the poor people of color in America, who may have several family members working long, hard hours and only bringing in minimum wages.   This is another factor in the culture of poverty. Institutional discrimination:   Established social systems can tend to work against immigrant groups.   In America there is a lot of employer legislation that requires university educated workers, American educated workers or a native grasp of English before anyone can be hired on.   Jobs that do not require these things will be the minimum wage occupations with very little room for growth or improvement.   Unless immigrants have the primary resources necessary to start a business or become educated after relocating, they will find themselves caught in the poverty trap.   This is purely a structural explanation of immigrant poverty, as Mike Davis explains it. Reference Davis, M (2001). Magical Urbanism: Latinos reinvent the US city. United States: Verso Press.   

Evolution of Management Essay

As long as there have been human endeavors, there have been people willing to take charge—people willing to plan, organize, staff, and control the work. One might say that nature abhors a vacuum and thus someone will always step forward to fill a leadership void. Probably the natural emergence of leadership grew out of our instinct for survival. In the hostile world of early humankind, food, shelter, and safety needs usually required cooperative efforts, and cooperative efforts required some form of leadership. Certainly leadership was vested in the heads of early families via the patriarchal system. The oldest member of the family was the most experienced and was presumed to be the wisest member of the family and thus was the natural leader. As families grew into tribes and tribes evolved into nations, more complex forms of leadership were required and did evolve. Division of labor and supervision practices is recorded on the earliest written record, the clay tablets of the Sumerians. In Sumerian society, as in many others since, the wisest and best leaders were thought to be the priests and other religious leaders. Likewise, the ancient Babylonian cities developed very strict codes, such as the code of Hammurabi. King Nebuchadnezzar used color codes to control production of the hanging gardens, and there were weekly and annual reports, norms for productivity, and rewards for piecework. The Egyptians organized their people and their slaves to build their cities and pyramids. Construction of one pyramid, around 5000 BC. , required the labor of 100,000 people working for approximately 20 years. Planning, organizing, and controlling were essential elements of that and other feats, many of them long term. The ancient Egyptian Pharaohs had long-term planners and advisors, as did their contemporaries in China. China perfected military organization based on line and staff principles and used these same principles in the early Chinese dynasties. Confucius wrote parables that offered practical suggestions for public administration. In the Old Testament, Moses led a group of Jewish slaves out of Egypt and then organized them into a nation. Exodus, Chapter 18, describes how Moses â€Å"chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, and differentiated between rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties and rulers of tens. A system of judges also evolved, with only the hard cases coming to Moses. The city-states of Greece were commonwealths, with councils, courts, administrative officials, and boards of generals. Socrates talked about management as a skill separate from technical knowledge and experience. Plato wrote about specialization and proposed notions of a healthy republic. The Roman Empire is thought by many to have been so successful because of the Romans’ great ability to organize the military and conquer new lands. Those sent to govern the far-flung parts of the empire were effective administrators and were able to maintain relationships with leaders from other provinces and across the empire as a whole. There are numerous other ancient leaders who were skillful organizers, at least as indicated by their accomplishments, such as Hannibal, who shepherded an army across the Alps, and the first emperor of China, who built the Great Wall. Many of the practices employed today in leading, managing, and administering modern organizations have their origins in antiquity. Many concepts of authority developed in a religious context. One example is the Roman Catholic Church with its efficient formal organization and management techniques. The chain of command or path of authority, including the concept of specialization, was a most important contribution to management theory. Machiavelli also wrote about authority, stressing that it comes from the consent of the masses. However, the ideas Machiavelli expressed in The Prince are more often viewed as mainly concerned with leadership and communication. Much management theory has military origins, probably because efficiency and effectiveness are essential for success in warfare. The concepts of unity of command, line of command, staff advisors, and division of work all can be traced back at least to Alexander the Great, or even earlier, to Lao Tzu. The Industrial Revolution created a need for new thinking and the refinement of old thinking. Time and motion studies intensified the division of work, as did centralized production and research and development. Modern management theory prevails afterwards. The preceding historical review indicates that thinking about management and leadership is in large part situational and that practices evolved to deal with new situations that arose. It also indicates that yesterday’s principles and theories are surprisingly contemporary and surprisingly sophisticated. Some overlap occurs, of course, and some gaps. Today’s theorists have attempted to fill in the gaps and adapt the theories to current situations. Yet, like in other areas of thought, not much is of recent origin in the field of management theory. The Evolution of Management Changes in management practices occur as managers, theorists, researchers, and consultants seek new ways to increase organizational efficiency and effectiveness. The driving force behind the evolution of management theory is the search for better ways to utilize organizational resources. Advances in management theory typically occur as managers and researchers find better ways to perform the principal management tasks: planning, organizing, leading, and controlling human and other organizational resources. In this paper, we will try to examine how management theory concerning appropriate management practices has evolved in modern times, and look at the central concerns that have guided its development. First, we look into the so-called classical management theories that emerged around the turn of the twentieth century. These include scientific management, which focuses on matching people and tasks to maximize efficiency; and administrative management, which focuses on identifying the principles that will lead to the creation of the most efficient system of organization and management. Next, we consider behavioral management theories, developed both before and after the Second World War, which focus on how managers should lead and control their workforces to increase performance. Then we discuss management science theory, which developed during the Second World War and which has become increasingly important as researchers have developed rigorous analytical and quantitative techniques to help managers measure and control organizational performance. Finally, we discuss business in the 1960s and 1970s and focus on the theories that were developed to help explain how the external environment affects the way organizations and managers operate. At the end of this paper, one will understand the ways in which management theory has evolved over time. One will also understand how economic, political, and cultural forces have affected the development of these theories and the ways in which managers and their organizations behave. Figure 1. 1 summarizes the chronology of the management theories that are discussed in this paper. Scientific Management Theory The evolution of modern management began in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, after the industrial revolution had swept through Europe, Canada, and the United States. In the new economic climate, managers of all types of organizations—political, educational, and economic—were increasingly trying to find better ways to satisfy customers’ needs. Many major economic, technical, and cultural changes were taking place at this time. The introduction of steam power and the development of sophisticated machinery and equipment changed the way in which goods were produced, particularly in the weaving and clothing industries. Small workshops run by skilled workers who produced hand-manufactured products (a system called crafts production) were being replaced by large factories in which sophisticated machines controlled by hundreds or even thousands of unskilled or semiskilled workers made products. Owners and managers of the new factories found themselves unprepared for the challenges accompanying the change from small-scale crafts production to large-scale mechanized manufacturing. Many of the managers and supervisors had only a technical orientation, and were unprepared for the social problems that occur when people work together in large groups (as in a factory or shop system). Managers began to search for new techniques to manage their organizations’ resources, and soon they began to focus on ways to increase the efficiency of the worker–task mix. Job specialization and division of labor The famous economist Adam Smith was one of the first to look at the effects of different manufacturing systems. 7 He compared the relative performance of two different manufacturing methods. The first was similar to crafts-style production, in which each worker was responsible for all of the 18 tasks involved in producing a pin. The other had each worker performing only 1 or a few of the 18 tasks that go into making a completed pin. Smith found that factories in which workers specialized in only 1 or a few tasks had greater performance than factories in which each worker performed all 18 pin-making tasks. In fact, Smith found that 10 workers specializing in a particular task could, between them, make 48 000 pins a day, whereas those workers who performed all the tasks could make only a few thousand at most. Smith reasoned that this difference in performance was due to the fact that the workers who specialized became much more skilled at their specific tasks, and, as a group, were thus able to produce a product faster than the group of workers who each had to perform many tasks. Smith concluded that increasing the level of job specialization— the process by which a division of labour occurs as different workers specialize in different tasks over time—increases efficiency and leads to higher organizational performance. Based on Adam Smith’s observations, early management practitioners and theorists focused on how managers should organize and control the work process to maximize the advantages of job specialization and the division of labour. F. W. Taylor and Scientific Management Frederick W. Taylor (1856–1915) is best known for defining the techniques of scientific management, the systematic study of relationships between people and tasks for the purpose of redesigning the work process to increase efficiency. Taylor believed that if the amount of time and effort that each worker expended to produce a unit of output (a finished good or service) could be reduced by increasing specialization and the division of labour, then the production process would become more efficient. Taylor believed that the way to create the most efficient division of labour could best be determined by means of scientific management techniques, rather than intuitive or informal rule-of-thumb knowledge. This decision ultimately resulted in problems. For example, some managers using scientific management obtained increases in performance, but rather than sharing performance gains with workers through bonuses as Taylor had advocated, they simply increased the amount of work that each worker was expected to do. Many workers experiencing the reorganized work system found that as their performance increased, managers required them to do more work for the same pay. Workers also learned that increases in performance often meant fewer jobs and a greater threat of layoffs, because fewer workers were needed. In addition, the specialized, simplified jobs were often monotonous and repetitive, and many workers became dissatisfied with their jobs. Scientific management brought many workers more hardship than gain, and left them with a distrust of managers who did not seem to care about their wellbeing. These dissatisfied workers resisted attempts to use the new scientific management techniques and at times even withheld their job knowledge from managers to protect their jobs and pay. Unable to inspire workers to accept the new scientific management techniques for performing tasks, some organizations increased the mechanization of the work process. For example, one reason for Henry Ford’s introduction of moving conveyor belts in his factory was the realization that when a conveyor belt controls the pace of work (instead of workers setting their own pace), workers can be pushed to perform at higher levels—levels that they may have thought were beyond their reach. Charlie Chaplin captured this aspect of mass production in one of the opening scenes of his famous movie, Modern Times (1936). In the film, Chaplin caricatured a new factory employee fighting to work at the machine imposed pace but losing the battle to the machine. Henry Ford also used the principles of scientific management to identify the tasks that each worker should perform on the production line and thus to determine the most effective way to create a division of labour to suit the needs of a mechanized production system. From a performance perspective, the combination of the two management practices— (1) achieving the right mix of worker–task specialization and (2) linking people and tasks by the speed of the production line—makes sense. It produces the huge savings in cost and huge increases in output that occur in large, organized work settings. For example, in 1908, managers at the Franklin Motor Company redesigned the work process using scientific management principles, and the output of cars increased from 100 cars a month to 45 cars a day; workers’ wages increased by only 90 percent, however. From other perspectives, though, scientific management practices raise many concerns. The definition of the workers’ rights not by the workers themselves but by the owners or managers as a result of the introduction of the new management practices raises an ethical issue, which we examine in this â€Å"Ethics in Action. † Fordism in Practice From 1908 to 1914, through trial and error, Henry Ford’s talented team of production managers pioneered the development of the moving conveyor belt and thus changed manufacturing practices forever. Although the technical aspects of the move to mass production were a dramatic financial success for Ford and for the millions of Americans who could now afford cars, for the workers who actually produced the cars, many human and social problems resulted. With simplification of the work process, workers grew to hate the monotony of the moving conveyor belt. By 1914, Ford’s car plants were experiencing huge employee turnover—often reaching levels as high as 300 or 400 percent per year as workers left because they could not handle the work-induced stress. 15 Henry Ford recognized these problems and made an announcement: From that point on, to motivate his workforce, he would reduce the length of the workday from nine hours to eight hours, and the company would double the basic wage from US$2. 50 to US$5. 00 per day. This was a dramatic increase, similar to an announcement today of an overnight doubling of the minimum wage. Ford became an internationally famous figure, and the word â€Å"Fordism† was coined for his new approach. Ford’s apparent generosity was matched, however, by an intense effort to control the resources—both human and material—with which his empire was built. He employed hundreds of inspectors to check up on employees, both inside and outside his factories. In the factory, supervision was close and confining. Employees were not allowed to leave their places at the production line, and they were not permitted to talk to one another. Their job was to concentrate fully on the task at hand. Few employees could adapt to this system, and they developed ways of talking out of the sides of their mouths, like ventriloquists, and invented a form of speech that became known as the â€Å"Ford Lisp. † Ford’s obsession with control brought him into greater and greater conflict with managers, who were often fired when they disagreed with him. As a result, many talented people left Ford to join his growing rivals. Outside the workplace, Ford went so far as to establish what he called the â€Å"Sociological Department† to check up on how his employees lived and the ways in which they spent their time. Inspectors from this department visited the homes of employees and investigated their habits and problems. Employees who exhibited behaviours contrary to Ford’s standards (for instance, if they drank too much or were always in debt) were likely to be fired. Clearly, Ford’s effort to control his employees led him and his managers to behave in ways that today would be considered unacceptable and unethical, and in the long run would impair an organization’s ability to prosper. Despite the problems of worker turnover, absenteeism, and discontent at Ford Motor Company, managers of the other car companies watched Ford reap huge gains in efficiency from the application of the new management principles. They believed that their companies would have to imitate Ford if they were to survive. They followed Taylor and used many of his followers as consultants to teach them how to adopt the techniques of scientific management. In addition, Taylor elaborated his principles in several books, including Shop Management (1903) and The detail how to apply the principles of scientific management to reorganize the work system. Taylor’s work has had an enduring effect on the management of production systems. Managers in every organization, whether it produces goods or services, now carefully analyze the basic tasks that must be performed and try to devise the work systems that will allow their organizations to operate most efficiently. The Gilbreths Two prominent followers of Taylor were Frank Gilbreth (1868–1924) and Lillian Gilbreth (1878–1972), who refined Taylor’s analysis of work movements and made many contributions to time-and-motion study. Their aims were to (1) break up into each of its component actions and analyze every individual action necessary to perform a particular task, (2) find better ways to perform each component action, and (3) reorganize each of the component actions so that the action as a whole could be performed more efficiently—at less cost of time and effort. The Gilbreths often filmed a worker performing a particular task and then separated the task actions, frame by frame, into their component movements. Their goal was to maximize the efficiency with which each individual task was performed so that gains across tasks would add up to enormous savings of time and effort. Their attempts to develop improved management principles were captured—at times quite humorously—in the movie Cheaper by the Dozen, which depicts how the Gilbreths (with their 12 children) tried to live their own lives according to these efficiency principles and apply them to daily actions such as shaving, cooking, and even raising a family. Eventually, the Gilbreths became increasingly interested in the study of fatigue. They studied how the physical characteristics of the workplace contribute to job stress that often leads to fatigue and thus poor performance. They isolated factors— such as lighting, heating, the colour of walls, and the design of tools and machines—that result in worker fatigue. Their pioneering studies paved the way for new advances in management theory. In workshops and factories, the work of the Gilbreths, Taylor, and many others had a major effect on the practice of management. In comparison with the old crafts system, jobs in the new system were more repetitive, boring, and monotonous as a result of the application of scientific management principles, and workers became increasingly dissatisfied. Frequently, the management of work settings became a game between workers and managers: Managers tried to initiate work practices to increase performance, and workers tried to hide the true potential efficiency of the work setting in order to protect their own well-being. Administrative management theory Side by side with scientific managers studying the person–task mix to increase efficiency, other researchers were focusing on administrative management, the study of how to create an organizational structure that leads to high efficiency and effectiveness. Organizational structure is the system of task and authority relationships that control how employees use resources to achieve the organization’s goals. Two of the most influential views regarding the creation of efficient systems of organizational administration were developed in Europe. Max Weber, a German professor of sociology, developed one theory. Henri Fayol, the French manager who developed a model of management introduced earlier, developed the other. The Theory of Bureaucracy Max Weber (1864–1920) wrote at the turn of the twentieth century, when Germany was undergoing its industrial revolution. To help Germany manage its growing industrial enterprises at a time when it was striving to become a world power, Weber developed the principles of bureaucracy—a formal system of organization and administration designed to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. A bureaucratic system of administration is based on five principles (summarized in Figure 1. 2). †¢ Principle 1: In a bureaucracy, a manager’s formal authority derives from the position he or she holds in the organization. Authority is the power to hold people accountable for their actions and to make decisions concerning the use of organizational resources. Authority gives managers the right to direct and control their subordinates’ behaviour to achieve organizational goals. In a bureaucratic system of administration, obedience is owed to a manager, not because of any personal qualities that he or she might possess— such as personality, wealth, or social status—but because the manager occupies a position that is associated with a certain level of authority and responsibility. †¢ Principle 2: In a bureaucracy, people should occupy positions because of their performance, not because of their social standing or personal contacts. This principle was not always followed in Weber’s time and is often ignored today. Some organizations and industries are still affected by social networks in which personal contacts and relations, not job-related skills, influence hiring and promotional decisions. †¢ Principle 3: The extent of each position’s formal authority and task responsibilities, and its relationship to other positions in an organization, should be clearly specified. When the tasks and authority associated with various positions in the organization are clearly specified, managers and workers know what is expected of them and what to expect from each other. Moreover, an organization can hold all its employees strictly accountable for their actions when each person is completely familiar with his or her responsibilities. †¢ Principle 4: So that authority can be exercised effectively in an organization, positions should be arranged hierarchically, so employees know whom to report to and who reports to them. Managers must create an organizational hierarchy of authority that makes it clear who reports to whom and to whom managers and workers should go if conflicts or problems arise. This principle is especially important in the armed forces, CSIS, RCMP, and other organizations that deal with sensitive issues involving possible major repercussions. It is vital that managers at high levels of the hierarchy be able to hold subordinates accountable for their actions. †¢ Principle 5: Managers must create a well-defined system of rules, standard operating procedures, and norms so that they can effectively control behaviour within an organization. Rules are formal written instructions that specify actions to be taken under different circumstances to achieve specific goals (for example, if A happens, do B). Standard operating procedures (SOPs) are specific sets of written instructions about how to perform a certain aspect of a task. A rule might state that at the end of the workday employees are to leave their machines in good order, and a set of SOPs then specifies exactly how they should do so, itemizing which machine parts must be oiled or replaced. Norms are unwritten, informal codes of conduct that prescribe how people should act in particular situations. For example, an organizational norm in a restaurant might be that waiters should help each other if time permits. Rules, SOPs, and norms provide behavioural guidelines that improve the performance of a bureaucratic system because they specify the best ways to accomplish organizational tasks. Companies such as McDonald’s and Wal-Mart have developed extensive rules and procedures to specify the types of behaviours that are required of their employees, such as, â€Å"Always greet the customer with a smile. † Weber believed that organizations that implement all five principles will establish a bureaucratic system that will improve organizational performance. The specification of positions and the use of rules and SOPs to regulate how tasks are performed make it easier for managers to organize and control the work of subordinates. Similarly, fair and equitable selection and promotion systems improve managers’ feelings of security, reduce stress, and encourage organizational members to act ethically and further promote the interests of the organization. If bureaucracies are not managed well, however, many problems can result. Sometimes, managers allow rules and SOPs—â€Å"bureaucratic red tape†Ã¢â‚¬â€to become so cumbersome that decision making becomes slow and inefficient and organizations are unable to change. When managers rely too much on rules to solve problems and not enough on their own skills and judgment, their behaviour becomes inflexible. A key challenge for managers is to use bureaucratic principles to benefit, rather than harm, an organization. Fayol’s Principles of Management Working at the same time as Weber but independently of him, Henri Fayol (1841–1925), the CEO of Comambault Mining, identified 14 principles (summarized in Table 2. ) that he believed to be essential to increasing the efficiency of the management process. Some of the principles that Fayol outlined have faded from contemporary management practices, but most have endured. The principles that Fayol and Weber set forth still provide a clear and appropriate set of guidelines that managers can use to create a work setting that makes efficient and effective use of organizational resources. These principles remain the bedrock of modern management theory; recent researchers have refined or developed them to suit modern conditions. For example, Weber’s and Fayol’s concerns for equity and for establishing appropriate links between performance and reward are central themes in contemporary theories of motivation and leadership. Behavioural Management Theory The behavioural management theorists writing in the first half of the twentieth century all espoused a theme that focused on how managers should personally behave in order to motivate employees and encourage them to perform at high levels and be committed to the achievement of organizational goals. The â€Å"Management Insight† indicates how employees can become demoralized when managers do not treat their employees properly. Management Insight – How to Discourage Employees Catherine Robertson, owner of Vancouver-based Robertson Telecom Inc. , made headlines in February 2001 for her management policies. Robertson is a government contractor whose company operates Enquiry BC, which gives British Columbians toll-free telephone information and referral services about all provincial government programs. Female telephone operators at Robertson Telecom must wear skirts or dresses even though they never come in contact with the public. Not even dress pants are allowed. As Gillian Savage, a former employee, notes, â€Å"This isn’t a suggested thing, it’s an order: No pants. † Brad Roy, another former employee, claims a female Indo-Canadian employee was sent home to change when she arrived at work wearing a Punjabi suit (a long shirt over pants). The no-pants rule is not the only concern of current and former employees. Roy also said, â€Å"I saw some people being reprimanded for going to the washroom. While Robertson denied Roy’s allegation regarding washrooms, she did confirm that company policy included the no-pants rule, that employees were not allowed to bring their purses or other personal items to their desks, and that they were not allowed to drink coffee or bottled water at their desks. The company does not provide garbage cans for the employees. A g roup of current and former employees recently expressed concern with the number of rules Robertson has in place, and claimed that the rules have led to high turnover and poor morale. A current employee claims that many workers do not care whether they give out the right government phone numbers. Robertson said that she knew of no employees who were discontent, and was shocked that the policies had caused distress among employees. She defended the dress code as appropriate business attire. Robertson may have to make some adjustments in her management style. The cabinet minister responsible for Enquiry BC, Catherine MacGregor, ordered an investigation of the contractor after being contacted by The Vancouver Sun about the allegations. She noted that the skirts-only rule for women is not appropriate, and that, â€Å"All of our contractors are expected to fully comply with the Employment Standards Act, Workers Compensation rules and human rights legislation. † Additionally, Mary-Woo Sims, head of the BC Human Rights Commission, said dress codes can’t be based on gender. Thus, an employer can’t tell men they must wear pants (as Robertson does), but tell women they can’t. â€Å"On the face of it, it would appear to be gender discriminatory,† Sims said. The Work of Mary Parker Follett If F. W. Taylor is considered to be the father of management thought, Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933) serves as its mother. 28 Much of her writing about management and about the way managers should behave toward workers was a response to her concern that Taylor was ignoring the human side of the organization. She pointed out that management often overlooks the multitude of ways in which employees can contribute to the organization when managers allow them to participate and exercise initiative in their everyday work lives. Taylor, for example, relied on time-and-motion experts to analyze workers’ jobs for them. Follett, in contrast, argued that because workers know the most about their jobs, they should be involved in job analysis and managers should allow them to participate in the work development process. Follett proposed that, â€Å"Authority should go with knowledge †¦ whether it is up the line or down. † In other words, if workers have the relevant knowledge, then workers, rather than managers, should be in control of the work process itself, and managers should behave as coaches and facilitators—not as monitors and supervisors. In making this statement, Follett anticipated the current interest in self-managed teams and empowerment. She also recognized the importance of having managers in different departments communicate directly with each other to speed decision making. She advocated what she called â€Å"cross-functioning†: members of different departments working together in cross-departmental teams to accomplish projects—an approach that is increasingly utilized today. Fayol also mentioned expertise and knowledge as important sources of managers’ authority, but Follett went further. She proposed that knowledge and expertise, and not managers’ formal authority deriving from their position in the hierarchy, should decide who would lead at any particular moment. She believed, as do many management theorists today, that power is fluid and should flow to the person who can best help the organization achieve its goals. Follett took a horizontal view of power and authority, in contrast to Fayol, who saw the formal line of authority and vertical chain of command as being most essential to effective management. Follett’s behavioural approach to management was very radical for its time. The Hawthorne Studies and Human Relations Probably because of its radical nature, Follett’s work was unappreciated by managers and researchers until quite recently. Instead, researchers continued to follow in the footsteps of Taylor and the Gilbreths. One focus was on how efficiency might be increased through improving various characteristics of the work setting, such as job specialization or the kinds of tools workers used. One series of studies was conducted from 1924 to 1932 at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company. This research, now known as the Hawthorne studies, began as an attempt to investigate how characteristics of the work setting—specifically the level of lighting or illumination—affect worker fatigue and performance. The researchers conducted an experiment in which they systematically measured worker productivity at various levels of illumination. The experiment produced some unexpected results. The researchers found that regardless of whether they raised or lowered the level of illumination, productivity increased. In fact, productivity began to fall only when the level of illumination dropped to the level of moonlight, a level at which presumably workers could no longer see well enough to do their work efficiently. The researchers found these results puzzling and invited a noted Harvard psychologist, Elton Mayo, to help them. Subsequently, it was found that many other factors also influence worker behaviour, and it was not clear what was actually influencing the Hawthorne workers’ behaviour. However, this particular effect— which became known as the Hawthorne effect—seemed to suggest that workers’ attitudes toward their managers affect the level of workers’ performance. In particular, the significant finding was that a manager’s behaviour or leadership approach can affect performance. This finding led many researchers to turn their attention to managerial behaviour and leadership. If supervisors could be trained to behave in ways that would elicit cooperative behaviour from their subordinates, then productivity could be increased. From this view emerged the human relations movement, which advocates that supervisors be behaviourally trained to manage subordinates in ways that elicit their cooperation and increase their productivity. The importance of behavioural or human relations training became even clearer to its supporters after another series of experiments—the bank wiring room experiments. In a study of workers making telephone switching equipment, researchers Elton Mayo and F. J. Roethlisberger discovered that the workers, as a group, had deliberately adopted a norm of output restriction to protect their jobs. Workers who violated this informal production norm were subjected to sanctions by other group members. Those who violated group performance norms and performed above the norm were called â€Å"ratebusters†; those who performed below the norm were called â€Å"chiselers. † The experimenters concluded that both types of workers threatened the group as a whole. Ratebusters threatened group members because they revealed to managers how fast the work could be done. Chiselers were looked down on because they were not doing their share of the work. Work-group members disciplined both ratebusters and chiselers in order to create a pace of work that the workers (not the managers) thought was fair. Thus, a work group’s influence over output can be as great as the supervisors’ influence. Since the work group can influence the behavior of its members, some management theorists argue that supervisors should be trained to behave in ways that gain the goodwill and cooperation of workers so that supervisors, not workers, control the level of work-group performance. One of the main implications of the Hawthorne studies was that the behavior of managers and workers in the work setting is as important in explaining the level of performance as the technical aspects of the task. Managers must understand the workings of the informal organization, the system of behavioural rules and norms that emerge in a group, when they try to manage or change behaviour in organizations. Many studies have found that, as time passes, groups often develop elaborate procedures and norms that bond members together, allowing unified action either to cooperate with management in order to raise performance or to restrict output and thwart the attainment of organizational goals. The Hawthorne studies demonstrated the importance of understanding how the feelings, thoughts, and behaviour of work-group members and managers affect performance. It was becoming increasingly clear to researchers that understanding behaviour in organizations is a complex process that is critical to increasing performance. Indeed, the increasing interest in the area of management known as organizational behaviour, the study of the factors that have an impact on how individuals and groups respond to and act in organizations, dates from these early studies. Theory X and Theory Y Several studies after the Second World War revealed how assumptions about workers’ attitudes and behaviour affect managers’ behaviour. Perhaps the most influential approach was developed by Douglas McGregor. He proposed that two different sets of assumptions about work attitudes and behaviours dominate the way managers think and affect how they behave in organizations. McGregor named these two contrasting sets of assumptions Theory X and Theory Y (see Figure 1. 3). THEORY X According to the assumptions of Theory X, the average worker is lazy, dislikes work, and will try to do as little as possible. Moreover, workers have little ambition and wish to avoid responsibility. Thus, the manager’s task is to counteract workers’ natural tendencies to avoid work. To keep workers’ performance at a high level, the manager must supervise them closely and control their behaviour by means of â€Å"the carrot and stick†Ã¢â‚¬â€rewards and punishments. Managers who accept the assumptions of Theory X design and shape the work setting to maximize their control over workers’ behaviours and minimize workers’ control over the pace of work. These managers believe that workers must be made to do what is necessary for the success of the organization, and they focus on developing rules, SOPs, and a well-defined system of rewards and punishments to control behaviour. They see little point in giving workers autonomy to solve their own problems because they think that the workforce neither expects nor desires cooperation. Theory X managers see their role as to closely monitor workers to ensure that they contribute to the production process and do not threaten product quality. Henry Ford, who closely supervised and managed his workforce, fits McGregor’s description of a manager who holds Theory X assumptions. THEORY Y In contrast, Theory Y assumes that workers are not inherently lazy, do not naturally dislike work, and, if given the opportunity, will do what is good for the organization. According to Theory Y, the characteristics of the work setting determine whether workers consider work to be a source of satisfaction or punishment; and managers do not need to control workers’ behaviour closely in order to make them perform at a high level, because workers will exercise selfcontrol when they are committed to organizational goals. The implication of Theory Y, according to McGregor, is that â€Å"the limits of collaboration in the organizational setting are not limits of human nature but of management’s ingenuity in discovering how to realize the potential represented by its human resources. It is the manager’s task to create a work setting that encourages commitment to organizational goals and provides opportunities for workers to be imaginative and to exercise initiative and self-direction. When managers design the organizational setting to reflect the assumptions about attitudes and behaviour suggested by Theory Y, the characteristics of the o rganization are quite different from those of an organizational setting based on Theory X. Managers who believe that workers are motivated to help the organization reach its goals can decentralize authority and give more control over the job to workers, both as individuals and in groups. In this setting, individuals and groups are still accountable for their activities, but the manager’s role is not to control employees but to provide support and advice, to make sure employees have the resources they need to perform their jobs, and to evaluate them on their ability to help the organization meet its goals. Henri Fayol’s approach to administration more closely reflects the assumptions of Theory Y, rather than Theory X. Management Science Theory This theory focuses on the use of rigorous quantitative techniques to help managers make maximum use of organizational resources to produce goods and services. In essence, management science theory is a contemporary extension of scientific management, which, as developed by Taylor, also took a quantitative approach to measuring the worker–task mix in order to raise efficiency. There are many branches of management science; each of them deals with a specific set of concerns: Quantitative management utilizes mathematical techniques—such as linear and nonlinear programming, modelling, simulation, queuing theory, and chaos theory—to help managers decide, for example, how much inventory to hold at different times of the year, where to locate a new factory, and how best to invest an organization’s financial capital. Resources in the organizational environment include the raw materials and skilled people that an organization requires to produce goods and services, as well as the support of groups including customers who buy these goods and services and provide the organization with financial resources. One way of determining the relative success of an organization is to consider how effective its managers are at obtaining scarce and valuable resources. The importance of studying the environment became clear after the development of open-systems theory and contingency theory during the 1960s. The Open-Systems View One of the most influential views of how an organization is affected by its external environment was developed by Daniel Katz, Robert Kahn, and James Thompson in the 1960s. 38 These theorists viewed the organization as an open system— a system that takes in resources from its external environment and converts or transforms them into goods and services that are then sent back to that environment, where they are bought by customers (see Figure 1. 4). At the input stage, an organization acquires resources such as raw materials, money, and skilled workers to produce goods and services. Once the organization has gathered the necessary resources, conversion begins. At the conversion stage, the organization’s workforce, using appropriate tools, techniques, and machinery, transforms the inputs into outputs of finished goods and services such as cars, hamburgers, or flights to Hawaii. At the output stage, the organization releases finished goods and services to its external environment, where customers purchase and use them to satisfy their needs. The money the organization obtains from the sales of its outputs allows the organization to acquire more resources so that the cycle can begin again. The system just described is said to be â€Å"open† because the organization draws from and interacts with the external environment in order to survive; in other words, the organization is open to its environment. A closed system, in contrast, is a self-contained system that is not affected by changes that occur in its external environment. Organizations that operate as closed ystems, that ignore the external environment and that fail to acquire inputs, are likely to experience entropy, the tendency of a system to lose its ability to control itself and thus to dissolve and disintegrate. Management theorists can model the activities of most organizations by using the open-systems view. Manufacturing companies like Ford and General Electric, for example, buy inputs such as component parts, skilled and semiskilled labour, and robots and computer-controlled manufacturing equipment; then, at the conversion stage, they use their manufacturing skills to assemble inputs into outputs of cars and computers. As we discuss in later chapters, competition between organizations for resources is one of several major challenges to managing the organizational environment. Researchers using the open-systems view are also interested in how the various parts of a system work together to promote efficiency and effectiveness. Systems theorists like to argue that â€Å"the parts are more than the sum of the whole†; they mean that an organization performs at a higher level when its departments work together rather than separately. Synergy, the performance gains that result when individuals and departments coordinate their actions, is possible only in an organized system. The recent interest in using teams comprising people from different departments reflects systems theorists’ interest in designing organizational systems to create synergy and thus increase efficiency and effectiveness.

Viual Aid and Gantt Chart Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Viual Aid and Gantt Chart - Essay Example For large organization, the focu i uually on improving the maintenance activitie uch that minimum amount of fund are expended (Anily et al., 1999; Alfare, 1999; Burke and mith, 1999a, b). The high cot of breakdown maintenance could be unbearable uch that the need for preventive maintenance become obviou. The afety of equipment and employee i improved by preventive maintenance ervice. Thi ha ignificant impact on the production proce. Reaching maximum plant availability through minimal delay and breakdown and optimal equipment working condition reduce or eliminate the need for ubcontracting ome apect of the job (Chen and Liao, 2005; Cheung et al., 2005). Thi ha a reducing effect on the uually large maintenance budget of many organization. Maintenance cheduling i uually baed on preventive maintenance activitie (Oke, 2004). In an organization where a large number of equipment are operated, preventive maintenance cheduling offer a mean of achieving continuou indutrial operation without which ytem utenance would be extremely difficult. ince the cot of implementing preventive maintenance cheduling i more economical than that of replacing broken down equipment, in the long t erm, it i more economical to implement thi maintenance option. ound maintenance cheduling i indipenable for high maintenance performance, which in turn facilitate the production proce to yield maximum output. Thi i attained when preventive maintenance upport continuou improvement programme. Effective maintenance cheduling require pecific time and labour allocation, knowledge of equipment hitory, pare availability, knowledge of work and facility priority rating, job pecification, etc. Maintenance cheduling promote effective utilization of both maintenance and production team, notably through minimizing idle time, breakdown and delay (Zhou et al., 2004; Gharbi and Kenne, 2005; Kim et al., 2005). For many year, extenive cientific documentation ha been made on cheduling both maintenance and operational activitie for profit (Yamayee et al., 1998). Recently, the focu of reearcher ha hifted from near optimal olution to the development of optimal olution approache. Thu, the recent work of Charle-Owaba (2002) i important in thi repect. The problem olved i the imultaneou cheduling of reource-contrained operation and maintenance (ee alo Oke and Charle-Owaba, 2005, 2006a, b). The current tudy i an extenion of the novel work of Charle-Owaba (2002). The remaining part of the paper i organized a follow: the next ection dicue the model formulation. Under thi ection, the notation ued in the model are dicued. In addition, the model aumption relevant to ea veel maintenance and operational activitie are explained. In thi ection, the algorithm governing the original model developed by Charle-Owaba (2002) i preented with detailed tep explained for it practical application. till in thi ection, the model framework i preented with mathematical equation upporting the original tructure preented by Charle-Owaba with ome extenion of the idea. Thee tep are preented in a logical manner peruaive enough for the reader to follow. In particular, the three-dimenional wave equation methodology i adopted. ection three dicue the cae tudy of a hipping company. Thi ection conider apect, which include the cae decription, ome variable affecting cot of hip maintenance and their mathematical repreentation,

Retirement Awareness Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Retirement Awareness - Essay Example Early health problems often result in an early exodus from the professional arena. Larry: I decided to retire early in 2003. I had formed a consulting service named Benyshek and Hough Consulting Services Inc. The services provided by our firm are management of dataset and develop into readily-accessible form to be used by cattle production forms, commercial producers, breeders, feedlots, and packing plants. We provide the expertise in EPDs, ultrasound and all areas of animal breeding and genetics. The consultation service needed full time work in the firm and I considered early retirement from the office. Larry: I did not receive any training especially on retirement but I have gathered some information from my old colleagues who talked about it generally. The topic is of common interest to all employees and therefore I got lots of information and awareness on it. I understood the importance of retirement planning and saving money for retirement. I was aware of pension scheme of the university and started saving for the future. Larry: Yes. I am very much comfortable. I enjoyed my life while working as University Professor where I had the opportunity to write numerous Articles and made countless presentations on my subject and received international recognition. I am still working on my own and have no financial problems. Larry: Yes, although I have retired as a university professor but I am still working as private consultant. I am fully enjoying my time with my colleagues and family. Retirement relieves you from the hectic routines of professional life. At the same time it gave me an opportunity to spend some time with my family and kids for which I have longed all my life. This is certainly a relaxing experience with no liabilities and work pressure. All I do is have a nice time and look after my private business which is going pretty well for me. Larry: I am regular visitor of Church and participate in social activities of

The Rule of Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

The Rule of Law - Essay Example There some theorists and researchers who have written about the rule of law lately. In this essay we deal mainly with two of such writers: Brian Z. Tamanaha and Rachel Kleinfeld Belton. We have chosen their papers as our source material because their points of view seem to be rigorous and comprehensive in the different facets of the rule of law that they talked about. Tamanaha does his best to be epistemic when dealing with the rule of law as a general principle that it is often misunderstood while Belton does her best to find a proper definition of what we mean by rule of law as she is completely aware of the generalised state of confusion about this term. Both writers shed light on this topic, and their insights are very useful in order to get an adequate understanding of the rule of law as a fundamental principle that should be taken into account with a sense of commitment and responsibility not only by government officials, politicians, lawmakers or law people, but by everyone in any society at any time. Nobody is exempt from the rule of law, so everybody has to worry about it. "The rule of law is fundamental to the western democratic order. ... in the case of Proclamations (1610) 77 ER 1352: 'The King himself ought not to be subject to man, but subject to God and the law, because the law makes him King'. (Cooray, 1995). This last assertion is quite bold and brings with it the idea of sovereignty. It can be misinterpreted like the concept of the free will of man. When we analyse carefully the Bible, as it is the Westerne standard as its sacred book, we will clearly see that there is not free will, but free agency. This means that man is not free to act as he pleases, but man is free to act according to the design of his own limited nature. So man is still responsible and accountable for his own deeds before God and man. The same happens with any sovereign who is supposed to act under the duty and the call of the law. Why Plainly because the law is the mechanism that makes him sovereign, that makes him king. Dr. Cooray keeps on analysing the rule of law with the following statements: "The rule of law in its modern sense owes a great deal to the late Professor AV Dicey. Professor Dicey's writings about the rule of law are of enduring significance. The essential characteristic of the rule of law are: i. The supremacy of law, which means that all persons (individuals and government) are subject to law. ii. A concept of justice which emphasises interpersonal adjudication, law based on standards and the importance of procedures. iii. Restrictions on the exercise of discretionary power. iv. The doctrine of judicial precedent. v. The common law methodology. vi. Legislation should be prospective and not retrospective. vii. An independent judiciary. viii. The exercise by Parliament of the legislative power and restrictions on exercise of legislative power by the executive. ix. An underlying moral