Behavioural Skills for Business Essay Example for Free

Behavioural Skills for Business Essay When looking at what a manager should be doing and what Richard has been doing it is easy to see that he is struggling to properly understand what being a manager actually entails. While there have been many theorists over the years all trying to show what being a manager truly means I think that Rosemary Stewart’s theory fits Richards situation perfectly. Stewart recommended a three part classification for the analysis of jobs. She focused on; Job Demands – What you must do Job Choices – The freedoms you have. Job Constraints – The limit on what you can do. When looking at Job Demands you need to look at certain things; What routine job activities must not be neglected or delegated without a penalty being incurred. When looking at Richards situation you can see that Conflict There can be many causes of conflict within a business these can include; the formation of cliques; group pressure; patterns of communication; personality clashes; assumptions about others; misuse of authority; power tactics and manipulation; general expectations and beliefs; misunderstandings; understandable beliefs and assumptions. With regards to Carole’s situation the biggest causes of conflict are due to the fact that there were personality clashes between herself and Joanne due to the fact that they couldn’t work out a way to effectively to distribute the workload and then fell out due to â€Å"bitter words were exchanged†. It doesn’t help that the patterns of communication are weak within the company when she was put in charge, an example of this is when she found out that both Joanne and Ian had taken to leaving work early via an administration officer.

Toms Character in the Great Gatsby :: essays research papers

Tom Buchanan’s moral character can be quesitoned due to his dispicable and patheic nature when it comes to his actions throughout the novel. Even though he was born into a wealthy family and thus inherited the wealth he has in the novel, no signs of moral teachings by his family were evident. The actions he took in the book were due to him being a conceited and ignorant man. His ignorance was a result of the easy access he had to power and wealth. He feels that because he has wealth and power in society, he is given the acquiescence to be as arrogant and immoral as he so chooses and society cannot do anything about it. Because of this he looks down upon people that he feels are lower in the social and financial ladder. An example of this is when Nick is talking to tom about his accomplice in adultery and Nick says â€Å"Doesn’t her(Myrtle Wilson) husband object?† and Tom replies with â€Å"Wilson? He thinks she goes to see her sister in New York. He’s so dumb he doesn’t know he’s alive† (Gatsby 26). This indicates that Tom is very cocky and ignorant. Tom’s immoral acts in the novel stem from his overconfidence and ignorance due to his wealth and power. This is further proved by the fact that when his first and only child was born, he left Daisy without any support only one hour after the birth of their daughter. This is shown in the novel when Daisy says â€Å"Well she was less than an hour old and Tom was God knows where† (Gatsby 22). For most, the birth of a child would be a joyous occasion and a reason for celebration but as for Tom’s case, he had no love for Daisy at that time. If he had love for her, he would not commit a sin and perpetrate adultery with Myrtle Wilson. A man with strong morals would never commit the sin of betraying their spouse and then cause the other person to do the same in the process. Moreover, he uses his accomplice in the adultery as an object and has no care or consideration for her whatsoever. An example of this is an altercation between Myrtle and Tom : â€Å"Daisy! Daisy! Daisy!† shouted Mrs. Wilson. â€Å"I’ll say it whenever I want to! Daisy!

Evaluating Strengths and Weaknesses of Reason as a Way of Knowing Essay

This paper that I am writing on is a piece of paper; that is undeniable fact. Hundreds of years of development and definition also back up this statement as do any scientific experiments carried out upon it in an effort to prove that this piece of paper is indeed a piece of paper. Yet through reasoning the fact that this is a piece of paper can be disputed and even proved wrong. Reason seems like an excellent way to work out the world around us. It uses all of the facts available to come up with a suitable hypothesis which can be tested and either proved or disproved through experimentation. This is the foundation of science, which is what the majority of people would trust. So anything proved through scientific means is therefore and irrefutable fact. Of course, in every experiment write up there is an acknowledgement that the data collected might not be completely accurate or that the interpretation of results might be wayward but again this is perfectly reasonable. It is reasonabl e to assume that despite your best efforts you may have got the answer wrong and another answer, no matter how unlikely, may be correct. As well as reason being proved by scientific experiment it can also be proved by historical fact. For example, it is undisputable fact that on 30th May 1431 Joan of Arc was burned at the stake. That cannot be argued with, it was that date and will always be that date no matter what happens in the future and every history text or website would agree with that fact. So it is therefore illogical to start claiming that Joan of Arc died last week as historical facts, which are perfectly reasonable, tell us otherwise. However, does reason really help us in our quest for knowledge or is it a poor way of finding out about the world? Despite much scientific investigation and historical knowledge there are many questions in the world that are left unanswered and unexplained. These questions are sometimes fundamental to life itself. For example, how are we conscious beings that can interact with the world beyond purely animal instincts? This question could possibly be explained by the electrica l impulses in the brain that form our thoughts but how can we have developed into any kind society purely through electrical impulses? In this case, using reason to explain what is happening almost seems unreasonable as the potential answer seems not to be able to completely cover the question. After all, if it is only electrical impulses, then what need is there for a person to be able to be able to create a symphony with an orchestra? As well as reason not being able to answer some questions there are some problems with following logical arguments. Logical fallacies are the main example of this. This is where through looking at two or more facts a conclusion is drawn which is false. For example: Cake is food, food is tasty, and therefore cake is tasty. However, this is obviously not true as whilst some cake may be tasty, perhaps even the majority; this does not mean to say that all cake is tasty. After all a burnt cake is not that tasty! Also not only is the conclusion false the two facts through which the conclusion is derived can also be said to be false. After all, any cake that I bake should not be classed as food and not all food is tasty. This statement is far too general and is a large problem with logical fallacies as they generally come to a wrong conclusion, both through the ignorance of other factors as well as the fact that often the facts are not completely accurate in the first place. Lateral thinking is also something which at first seems illogical yet (often) in hindsight becomes logical. It is creative thinking which does not merely follow the most logical steps to reach an answer. For example a suggested solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East was to ship vast amounts of Marmite to the area. This seems utterly senseless, as surely holding talks and making agreements between the two sides would be the best steps forward. However, on examining the idea further it becomes logical, if creative! In the typical diet of people in the Middle Eastern area there is a lack of zinc due to the main diet of unleavened bread. This lack of zinc creates aggression. Marmite contains a lot of zinc and therefore could be used to solve the problem in the Middle East. Whilst this solution does not seem reasonable it would work and so shows that reason is not always the best policy. There is also a difference in opinion between what people may think is logical and illogical. Many people in the world take illogical decisions and believe illogical knowledge. Or they seem to do so. Religion is a major factor in many people’s lives and it affects many of the things that they think and do. Due to this people may make a decision that seems illogical to secular people which is perfectly logical to religious people. This brings up the question of; what is reason? After all if two different decisions about the same thing are made and are both reasonable to those people it begs the question of whether or not reason itself can be defined. Is reason just a matter of opinion or is there a yardstick by which all reasonable decisions can be made. If we look back at the British Empire one of the purposes of that was to; â€Å"Make the world England† rather then to respect what other cultures thought and did. In many small islands in the Far East a warrior culture was common and often tribes would fight each other for prestige rather then for anything else. However, to the British this seemed barbaric, yet without it the culture fell apart. For them it was reasonable for this to take place, the knowledge they had seemed to point to the fact that this was a good thing. But not for the British who had a very different opinion through the knowledge that they had acquired. To conclude reason as a way of knowing has both strengths and weaknesses. The weaknesses are that a difference of opinion means that people will reason differently too making it an irregular method of making decisions and acquiring knowledge. Reason may also not be the best policy as more creative solutions may be better which can be derived through latera l thinking. Also logical fallacies call into question the validity of reason as they produce false results through logical steps. As well as this we cannot answer some fundamental questions through reason. However, reason is often the best way that we can make decisions in the world. Scientific experiment and historical knowledge are two very good examples of how reason cannot be changed and is therefore very valuable as it allows us to have consistency with our knowledge. Of course religion means that some inconsistency comes into play with our knowledge but on the whole reason is often the best policy.

What Is Glaucon s Argument On The Republic Do You Find...

What is Glaucon’s argument in the Republic? Do you find it persuasive? Give reasons for your answer. Glaucon’s argument in book II of Republic concerns the issue of justice. From the outset Glaucon explains that justice is a social contract that emerges - between people who are roughly equal in power - for the reason being that the pain of experiencing unjust actions is greater than the benefits accrued from inflicting it. (Plato, 2008) In this essay I will first outline his argument and explain how the parable of the Ring of Gyges attempts to support his theory. I will then argue that I do not find his argument plausible and it falls just short of persuading the reader. Glaucon states that all goods can be divided into three classes: things that we desire for their consequences; goods that we desire for their own sake and things we desire both for their own sake and for their beneficial consequences. Socrates believes that justice is in the latter group. Glaucon asks Socrates to prove justice is in the last group and begins defending unjust actions in the strongest way possible (Plato, 2008). Glaucon begins by arguing that people only act justly because they believe that the action will reap reward. He essentially argues that justice is a necessary evil and without it society would tear itself apart. He argues that justice is a social contract formed because the ‘disadvantages of suffering injury exceed the advantages of inflicting it’(Plato, 2008). Essentially heShow MoreRelated Plato’s Republic: Justice and Injustice in Thrasymachus Account6580 Words   |  27 PagesPlato’s Republic: Justice and Injustice in Thrasymachus Account ABSTRACT: This paper has a two-fold task. First, I show that there are three types of individuals associated with the Thrasymachean view of society: (a) the many, i.e., the ruled or those exploited individuals who are just and obey the laws of the society; (b) the tyrant or ruler who sets down laws in the society in order to exploit the many for personal advantage; (c) the stronger individual (kreittoon) or member of the society