In what ways can an organisation's culture affect or influence (a) Essay

In what ways can an organisation's culture affect or influence (a) structure and (b) employee behaviour Answer by using the organisation G.O.F. case study - Essay Example Galactic Office Furniture is a private sector undertaking and follows a hierarchical organization structure. The basic motive of the project is to determine the effect of the present organizational culture and analyse the aspects of Human Resource Management system within the firm. The in-depth analysis of HRM policies is important as it would help in pointing out the defects in the systems and will necessarily bring out the scopes for improvement. The organisational goals and strategies are influenced by the structure and the culture followed by an organisation. Although the goals and strategies documented by the GOF upper brass is quite challenging and forward looking, still the organisational structure and the work culture followed by it greatly limits its value. According to the new mission, the company started focusing on improving the structure of the organization to improve the efficiency of operation. The operations and the production process need to be improved in order to reduce cost and increase flexibility of the process. This actually demands a change in the organization structure. Whenever there is a change in the system, the top management should be careful enough to bring about the change in the organization culture. (Morrison, Brown, Smit, 2006). Bringing a change is the organizational culture is of course a gradual process and it is time consuming. For that specific reason, it is always considered as a long-term strategic goal in Human Resource Management system. However, in most of the cases, culture might be considered as an abstraction but its forces are derived from the social interaction within the organization. (Schein, 2004, p.5). For that reason when the management seeks to adapt certain change in policy, it is always advisable to start from the core of the organization to bring about a change in the cultural base of the organization. Effective leadership can

Is Class Still Relevant in a Modern Society?

Is Class Still Relevant in a Modern Society? The question of whether ‘class is still a relevant concept in the understanding of social divisions in contemporary Britain has two components to be analysed, firstly is class still and do social divisions exist in Britain? The results of this research indicate yes to both questions, that although class and the nature of its existence have changed since Marx, Weber and Durkheim’s eras, it is very difficult to get past the important and definite existence of class and social divisions within Britain today. Neo-Marxists, neo-Weberians as well as functionalists and other theorists analysing it from a post-modern, post industrialisation perspective support this opinion. Class itself is a concept that has been traditionally hard to define and continues to be so. As Bradley states in Fractured Identities (1996, p. 45), ‘class is everywhere and nowhere’. Social class refers to the hierarchical distinctions between individuals or groups in societies or cultures. It has a shifting identity with few definite physical signs or markers to monitor. Part of the difficulty to define it categorically is that it involves many terms and viewpoints: class awareness; class consciousness; class imagery; class interest; class position; contradictory class location; false consciousness; middle class; petite bourgeoisie; proletariat; status; stratification; underclass; working class, the list is extensive. As Bilton et al (1987, p. 36) states: ‘Structures where economic relationships are primarily called class societies, and in these cases we refer to the different unequal groups as classes. There is considerable despite over the precise definition of this term, but we shall use class to refer to a group sharing a similar position in a structure of objective material inequalities, produced by a particular system of economic relations characteristic of a particular mode of production.’ (Bilton T, et al 1987, p. 36; Bradley 1996, pp. 45-6). Analysing class has historically formed a set of debates, emanating from the initial positions taken by theorists such as Marx and Weber, this debate has continued with neo-Marxists and neo-Weberians. In Class and Stratification. An Introduction to Current Debates, Rosemary Crompton (1998) suggests there is now a movement that involves a split between those who study class structure and mobility using statistical research and those who focus on class formation and consciousness by using historical or ethnographical approaches. This conflict has resulted in a stalemate of sorts where some sociologists have lost interest in the importance of social class. While anthropologists, historians and sociologists identify class as a social structure emerging from pre-history, the idea of social class entered the English dictionary approximately in the 1770s. It is valuable for this reason that any changes that may have been made since its induction should be evaluated. (Bradley 1996, pp. 45-6; Taylor, 1999, pp. 97-8). Marx saw class categories as relating to the ownership of property, and production relationship. He founded a revolutionary concept in social order – communism, in a communist state there would be no stratification. The two groups were the bourgeoisie who owned the means of production, and the proletariat the workers. He believed this relationship was based upon exploitation and conflict. Marx predicted a revolution in which the proletariat would defeat the bourgeoisie and share ownership of the factories equally between themselves. Although this did not occur in Britain, it did in Russia, in 1917. The proletariat revolted and all means of production fell into public ownership, forming a socialist state. This was close to Marxs ideological dream of communism. However, ownership despite being equal still existed and there was divisions still existed, some people had better, more highly respected, jobs than others. There was still inequality and competition. (Albrow, 1999, pp 155-9; Bilton T, et al 1987, pp 27-8). Weber was influenced by Marxs work but disagreed with his theory, he thought it was too deterministic. Being a structuralist, he believed people were shaped by the society in which they lived and capable of social action. He also disagreed with Marxs theory on stratification. Marx based his view of class structure on ownership of the means of production whilst Weber believed it was dependant on life chances. Life chances depended on wealth and skills; the upper class had the most advantageous life chances, and the poor (e.g. the unemployed, elderly and homeless), the least; economic situation, market situation, status and political party could determine class. Whist Marx split society into two distinct classes; Weber saw that social structure was more complex. The four main strata he identified were the upper class, the middle class, the working class and the poor/underclass. However, within these groups, were other, more subtle divisions, which depended on a number of variables incl uding differences in income, opportunities for upwards mobility, security of employment, language, life-style and social estimation of others. However, Weber perceived class as somewhat different, he believed that class consciousness was essentially conditional –that consciousness could occur depending upon circumstances. He acknowledged, as Marx believed, that classes and social groups were likely to experience conflict in attempts to gain status honour or class movement. (Taylor, 1999, pp. 99). Neo-Marxists come in many varying forms, but they share a common acknowledgement of the importance of gender/sex divisions. Nevertheless, it was still placed less important than class divisions under a capitalist society. Consequently, they thought the primary basis of exploitation in society was class, not gender. This implies that capitalists have more power over workers than men have over women, not an uncontroversial view. Issues of race and ethnicity were also viewed as less important than class. Functionalists take the view that social stratification is both essential to the running of society and inevitable. They believe that all social phenomena exist because they have a positive function to fulfil. Durkheim, a functionalist, described society as a living organism in which different organs with specific functions such as education, work, and government are inter-related. According to Bilton et al (1987), ‘the education system is a vehicle for developing the human resour ces of an industrial nation.’ (Bilton T, et al 1987, p. 308; Swingewood 2000, pp 137-140). In Class and Stratification, Crompton challenges the claim that class is dead and is in fact very much alive. In the vein of this belief, Goldthorpe and Wright critically examine ‘post-modern’ theories of ‘post-class’ societies, as well as the most recent contributions of quantitative sociological approaches. It is argued that despite their theoretical differences, the work of these two authors has been undergoing a process of convergence in recent years. Crompton analyses how the death of class is the contemporary increase in the event of social and material inequality. Definitional difficulties of class are only one aspect of the decision by many sociologists to question its relevance. Cromption explores social inequalities including gender and the feminisation of the middle classes, the significance of recent changes in work and employment, consumption and citizenship. (Bradley 1996, pp. 59-62; Crompton 1998, pp. 113-5) In most modern industrial societies, including Britain, the system of social stratification is fluid through generations or perhaps in their own lifetime, people can move up or down the social scale. A number of modern thinkers have tried to define what makes a particular ‘social class’. Is it accent, surroundings, occupation, income, wealth? If we simply spoke only about class as it was first defined and existed since Marx/Weber times we would not taking into account societal changes such as the increase in unemployment, health care crises, resulting in a concept of society that has always existed yet, become more prevent and occupied: the underclass. It seems that any social divisions that may exist stem from the pretext of social class and its restraints and the difficulty to move from one class to another is problematic. (Bilton T, et al 1987, 308). Thatcher’s Conservative Party did not believe in the concept of society, rather than society had no existence outside of individuals. Her party’s main aim was to reduce the role of the state in the economy, through various means such as the privatisation of British Rail, council houses and the introduction of poll tax in 1989. She advocated strong welfare reforms and created an adult Employment Training system that included full-time work done for the dole plus small top-up, based upon the a US workfare model, called the ‘Social Fund’ system. It placed one-off welfare payments for emergency needs under a local budgetary limit, and where possible changed them into loans, and rules for assessing jobseeking effort by the week, were breaches of social consensus unprecedented since the 1920s. All very strong and harsh steps only seeming to increase the already obvious class inequalities and difficulties in British society. By 1990, opposition to Thatchers polici es on local government taxation, her Governments perceived mishandling of the economy -especially the high interest rates which were undermining her core voting base within the home-owning, entrepreneurial and business sectors, as well as other factors finally made her and her party seem increasingly politically vulnerable. Her rein was over, yet her affect on British society remains strong and well-felt by general society. So it seems given all the variants and backgrounds that we have discussed that class divisions still exist and thus are still very relevant. The old saying the rich gets richer and the poor get poorer certainly was true of Thatcher’s era (Taylor, 1999, pp. 111-3; Albrow, 1999, pp 56-7; Margaret Thatcher: 2006). The Rowntree Report in 1995 exposed that unemployment rates in Britain were rising high and more rapidly than in any other industrial country – a very worrying finding, that unemployment, insecurity and deprivation were still very much prevalent in the working classes. Examining the existence of the underclass leads us to the question of whether it is a convenient label, and a powerful rhetorical label, as Marxists argue, or is it a post-industrial phenomenon? Considering that we are analysing British society post-industrialisation, this is an interesting question to ponder. Some theorists believe that it is a term that victimises and blames people and keeps them in their socio-economic spot without the opportunity or resources to move. (Fincher, R Saunders, P, 2001, p. 21; Bradley 1996, p 46; Taylor, 1999, pp. 113-5). To answer our original question of whether class can still be used as applicable concept in the understanding of social divisions in contemporary Britain, the answer is most definitely yes, but it has changed from the days of Marx and Weber and initial sociological conceptualisation. It seems that to analyse this process highlights the parts of society that may be disadvantaged through their social class or class immobility. Awareness is an important part of the process of changing and at the very least, compassion and societal responsibility. Bibliography Albrow, M, 1999, Sociology: The Basics. Roultedge, London Bilton T, Bennett, K, Jones, P, Stanworth, M, Sheard, K Webster, A 1987. Introductory Sociology. Macmillan Education Ltd, Hampshire. Bradley, H, 1996. Fractured Identities. Changing Patterns of Inequality. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Crompton, R, 1998. Class and Stratification. An Introduction to Current Debates, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Erikson, K, 1997, Sociological Visions, Rowman Littlefield Publishers, Inc, USA. Fincher, R Saunders, P, 2001, Creating Unequal Futures? Rethinking Poverty, Inequality and Disadvantage. Allen and Unwin, Australia. Giddens, A 1993. Sociology, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Taylor, S, 1999, Sociology: Issues and Debates, Macmillan, Great Britain. Swingewood, A 2000. A Short History of Sociological Thought, 3rd Ed, St Martin’s Press, New York. Psychological/Sociological Paradigms, retrieved 7th April 2006, from:Â  http://webpages.marshall.edu/~carter12/eda705a5.htm. Wikipedia, April 2006, Margreat Thatcher, retrieved 11th April 2006, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

A Critique of O. P. Dwivedis Satyagraha for Conservation: Awakening the Spirit of Hinduism :: Environment Environmental Papers

A Critique of O. P. Dwivedis Satyagraha for Conservation: Awakening the Spirit of Hinduism In his article Satyagraha for Conservation: Awakening the Spirit of Hinduism, O. P. Dwivedi argues that we must reawaken religious values if the world is going to reduce the current level of environmental degradation. He suggests that religious beliefs can serve as a crucial foundation in helping to create a self-consciously moral society which would put conservation and respect for Gods creation first, and relegate individualism, materialism, and our modern desire to dominate nature in a subordinate place. Dwivedi further argues that religion helps to make humans aware of the limits of our control. He uses the example of Hindu religious beliefs to explain how reawakening religious beliefs might create a change in attitudes toward nature. Although I agree with Dwivedis contention that religious values can serve to support environmental movements, I would argue that his article presents an overly simplistic view of the power of religion. Dwivedi fails to address the constantly changing nature of religious traditions. In addition, he does not address the fact that India (a predominantly Hindu country) is severely polluted today. I felt that Dwivedis argument was weakened by his failure to deal with these issues. As a result, I would like to explore some of the gaps in Dwivedis article. I will also deal briefly with Guhas article and the need for a reawakening of religious values to be accompanied by a simultaneous change in social and economic realities. According to Dwivedi, the Hindu religion is one of many religious traditions which support ecological preservation and respect for the Earth. He argues that many of Hinduisms basic tenets reflect the idea that humans are meant to care for their environment. Although I do not disagree that this is one interpretation of the Hindu texts, I would suggest that Hinduism (like many religions) can also be presented as encouraging human control over the earth. Yes, many of the texts do support non-violence and care for the earth but there are also some passages/texts which support violence and human control over the earth (examples include The Bhagavad-Gita and passages with the RgVeda). Overall, I would say that Dwivedis argument for the ecological consciousness of Hinduism is the more accurate interpretation of the texts. However, it is crucial to recognize that there are alternative and opposing interpretations.In his article, Dwivedi writes as if incorporating religious values into the secular world will necessarily support environmental preservation. Although it is possible that this could happen, it is also possible that religions could be used to argue the other side of the issue.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Valuable Knowledge

Education is generally regarded as a means of gaining valuable knowledge. However, it may actually be more destructive than constructive to others. This dangerous aspect of education is vividly shown in Mary Shelley†s Frankenstein. Victor Frankenstein†s misfortunes start from the moment he discovers Cornelius object into life again. The creation of the daemon is result of his efforts. Little does he know the consequences of his creation and the responsibilities that follow. In Frankenstein, Shelley attempts to portray how Frankentein†s dangerous education from books influences his strong ambition and causes him to ignore responsibilities afterwards. Frankenstein learns most of his knowledge from the books that he reads, but these are of the unusual kind. At the young age of thirteen, he is first exposed to the works of Cornelius Agrippa, Paracelsus, and Albertus Magnus who are â€Å"†¦ ancient teachers of [Chemistry]† (p. 40). He becomes quite fascinated with his findings and begins his experiment on the basis of these books. If he had not stumbled across these books, he would not have created the daemon. It is too late when he realizes this– he has already gone mad. For this he blames his father. When he had first discovered Agrippa, he had told his father, but he merely shunned the book. † ‘My dear Victor, do not waste your time upon this; it is sad trash† (p. 30). â€Å"If. . . my father had taken the pains to explain to me that the principles of Agrippa had been entirely exploded, and that a modern system of science had been introduced. . . I should have certainly have thrown Agrippa aside, and have contented my imagination. . . by returning with greater ardour to my former studies† (p. 30). Had his father shielded him from the contents of Agrippa†s book as well the others, Frankenstein would not have fallen prey to the fateful education of such works. Frankenstein†s strong ambition also plays a role in throwing off his reasoning. He had first thought of the plan of the creation when his mother died. The books he reads reinforces his thoughts. Since then, he obsesses with the thought that he â€Å"†¦ could bestow animation upon lifeless matter†¦ † (p. 48) and maybe even â€Å"†¦ renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption† (p. 48). His strong passion for knowledge alters his reasoning. The knowledge he learns and the resulting project are so immense that he soon forgets about his surroundings and the people around him. â€Å"And the same feelings which made me neglect the scenes around me caused me also to forget those friends who were so many miles absent, and whom I had not seen for so long a time† (p. 49). Frankenstein's education isolates him from the real world rather than brings him closer to the people he loves. Unfortunately, Frankenstein†s education does not prepare him for the obligations involved in such a creation. Rather than teaching him the way of life, he abandons him. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room†¦ † (p. 52). The daemon is left all alone and must fend for himself in this strange world. When Frankenstein refuses to create a mate for him, he is full rage and vows revenge by killing his lived ones. If he had known the responsibilities following his creation, he might not have created the daemon in the first place. Ironically, Frankenstein†s passion for the knowledge of giving life to an inanimate human suddenly turns into terror. The same education that interested him now frightens him and turns him mad. â€Å"But I was in reality ery ill; and surely nothing but the unbounded and unremitting attentions of my friend could have restored me to life† (p. 56). Mary Shelley vividly shows how Frankenstein†s education is potentially dangerous. The knowledge he learns from certain books fatefully leads him away from the world, throwing off reasoning. He turns into a madman following his creation of the daemon. Many misfortunes result from him running away from that same wisdom and ignoring the responsibilities regarding the daemon. The perilous education which he engages in causes his unbalanced and eccentric nature, and ultimately causes his downfall.

How does Miller use the character of Alfieri to manipulate the audience? Essay

How does Miller use the character of Alfieri to manipulate the audience? What is his attitude to the events of the play? Miller portrays Alfieri as the symbolic bridge between the Italian and American cultures. Alfieri is seen to appreciate the traditional Italian customs yet he also abides by and respects American law. This causes sympathy for him as he is caught between the two paths and has to choose between them. This brings up a theme of the play; choosing between doing the right thing or being true to your feelings. Alfieri can sympathise with Eddie but he can not do anything about the situation that Eddie is in, as the law can not help him and he is not in a position where he is able to help. Miller uses Alfieri as a narrator in ‘A View from the Bridge; Miller has based Alfieri’s role in the play on the idea of a Greek Chorus. The main purpose of the Chorus was to begin and end the action that takes place in the play, as well as to link the different parts of the play together so it runs smoothly. This is one of the purposes Miller gives Alfieri in the play. Miller establishes a relationship between Alfieri and the audience, by having Alfieri speak directly to the audience. As he is the only character who addresses the audience directly, they feel closer to him than to any other character. Through Alfieri, Miller is able to influence what the audience think of certain characters at different points throughout the play. For instance in reference to Eddie, Alfieri says that â€Å"He was as good a man as he had to be in a life that was hard and even†. This description of Eddie directly influences the audiences’ opinion of Eddie. Miller can also manipulate the audience into feeling different things for characters, for instance creating sympathy for Eddie at the end of the play, â€Å"I confess that something perversely pure calls to me †¦ so I mourn him †¦Ã¢â‚¬  Alfieri also influences the audience by the way he explains certain events in the play. Alfieri provides commentary on what is happening in the play as well as providing his own opinion. The audience is influenced by his words as they have a close relationship with him. When Alfieri talks to the audience he is much more relaxed and talks about his private life as if he was talking to a close friend or relative. He is much more open as he is not being consulted as a professional, â€Å"I no longer keep a pistol in my filing cabinet.† This is not a subject that would come up when talking to someone who you have just met. This adds to the closeness the audience feel with Alfieri. However during his talks with Eddie he tries to be un-biased and give sound advice but he can not help but to like Eddie. This is because something about Eddie’s character and his actions appeal to him, not taking into account how self-centred or selfish theses actions are, â€Å"Give me the number of the Immigration Bureau†. Eddie reporting on Marco and Rodolfo is done for selfish reasons, but Alfieri admires it as he acted without hiding behind a superficial faà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ade due to his simplistic nature. Miller gives Eddie a person to confide in, someone he can look to for sound advice; a fatherly figure, when he created Alfieri. Alfieri serves multiple purposes throughout the play. During the play most of what Alfieri says is directed towards the audience or towards Eddie, this shows the audience that Alfieri is detached from the actual action happening in the play and can not directly influence what is going to take place. He is seen to omniscient, Alfieri can be seen as the person looking down from a vantage point on top of the bridge from where he can see everything but affect nothing. When Eddie goes to Alfieri for advice various times throughout the play, we can see that he feels he can express his feelings a bit better, but he is almost always disappointed as Alfieri only gives him advice that he feels is not right and there must be better solutions. In the end even this helpful advice is not enough to stop the events that befall Eddie. However this is subjective as, if Eddie had followed this advice it is unlikely that he would have had such a tragic demise. Events followed a tragic path because only Eddie holds the true power to stop things from happening the way they did. This is his fatal flaw. Alfieri’s inability to change the events, affects him deeply and he feels powerless and desperate as he can see how events will turn out and the one person who could change this; Eddie, is too set in his ways and does not heed his advice. When Eddie comes to Alfieri in Act Two he is described as having eyes â€Å"like tunnels†, the effect of the state of his eyes on Alfieri is that he seriously contemplates calling the police. This also shows Alfieri’s desperation as he is willing to turn to drastic measure to stop events, however he does not call the police and therefore events carry on as they were. There are some similarities between the advice Alfieri gives to Eddie and Marco even though they are two very different people with different temperaments and personalities. The gist of the advice he gives them, is that the law can not help them in the situation they are in, and it is better to â€Å"let it go†. The advice he gives them is what they should follow if they want to do the right thing, but it is not what each of them want to hear so they do not heed it. At the end of the play Miller, through Alfieri causes sympathy for Eddie and shows the audience Eddie’s redeeming quality, his love for his family and being â€Å"himself purely† in his actions even if his actions are not purely good. Alfieri can not help but to be drawn to Eddie and this causes internal conflict within him because he is torn between being true to his roots or to abide by the laws of the country in which he resides in. Alfieri whilst being omniscient is also impotent; this is a major contributing factor to the tragic demise of Eddie and the tragic ending of the play.