Socially Useful Productive Activity Essay Example for Free

Socially Useful Productive Activity Essay Even my NGO (Deepalaya) had apprehensions as to how much we will be able to contribute in such a short time span. But after going through the whole exercise I can say that this course will surely be one of the highlights of my two year PGDM. SUPA helped me create a bond with Deepalaya that will definitely last a lifetime. I always wanted an NGO that is involved in education, so Deepalaya was perfect choice. Not only had it made me sensitive towards people who are underprivileged it also gave me a sense of pride of being a part of a worthy cause. It was an eye-opener to see that so many things that we take for granted are a distant dream for the majority in our country. If my work changes the life of even one child I would consider these 22 days being worth every single second. So I take this opportunity to specially thank Prof. J. Philip, President XIME and Prof. S. D. Tyagaraj, Dean XIME for coming up with such an innovative and socially responsible course. I am surprised that XIME is the only management institute that offers such a course, after all it’s not just the corporate’ that require efficient management. In a country like ours where there is extreme inequality in the society it becomes absolutely imperative that people like us come forward and contribute in our own little way. Today management professionals are venturing into social welfare, I hope this XIME initiative gives a boost to this trend and that many more institute’ follow suit. When I pass out of XIME one and a half years from now and look back at the two years I spent here, I would rate SUPA above all the other courses that I studied. At this point I have to acknowledge a few people who made my involvement with Deepalaya fruitful; Mr. The answer came pretty quickly, it was ‘Education’. Education is the only cause that I could see myself joining because I consider it to be the difference between success and failure. In our country literacy rate is just 66%, which is way below what we are achieving for. I am not just talking about formal education but also professional as well as vocational education. These high levels of illiteracy create a workforce that is unskilled and is unable to achieve its maximum potential. It is the reason why education has been the focus of our government, with ‘Right to Education’ being a big step. Education gives you a platform from which you build a career for yourself and become a responsible citizen. ‘Money is a current asset but education is a fixed one that gives dividends in the long run’. So finding an NGO with its roots deep into education was my primary focus. Once I decided on the cause, I started searching for an NGO in Delhi/NCR which serves the cause that is close to my heart. I have been lucky to be born in a family that could afford my education. So I was looking for an organization that helps in educating people who are not so lucky. Our course outlines that we have to get in touch with that other part of society. Deepalaya fit the bill perfectly as its primary focus was on education, especially child education. Every person you educate is a small effort in making a ‘self reliant’ society, which is Deepalaya’s motto. My own background check confirmed the credibility of the NGO so I didn’t think twice about sending an application. I am glad that it was accepted and I got a chance to make good friends and contribute to the society in my own personal way. SUPA Report: Denny Thomas Page 4 About Deepalaya Vision

Global Migration: Analysis of Stephen Castles (2004)

Global Migration: Analysis of Stephen Castles (2004) Do you agree with Stephen Castles (2004) that migration policies fail? If so, why? If not, why not? Introduction Migration is one of the most important issues in international politics in 21st century. In 2013, there were about 232 million people-3.2 percent of migrants in the world and it has been increasing since 1990 with 154million to 175million until 2000.[1] People cross borders to have better opportunities, to escape poverty and have a better life for their families. Other reasons might be civil wars, conflicts or geographical problems caused by environmental degradation.[2] However, historically, the characteristic of migration began to change since sixteenth century when the European countries started to expand. Moreover form nineteenth century until the First World War, there was a massive movement from European countries to North America.[3] In addition, the number of migrants has been dramatically increasing after 1945. Meanwhile, in Britain, Western Europe, Australia and in North America the political concern about unwanted migrants and migration control issue have become parts of as ‘high politics’ because migration problems were affecting relations between states in 1960s and 1970s.[4] Especially, in 1980s and 1990s there were intensive efforts in controlling migration in many developed countries and they were trying to establish multilateral or supranational regulation system on migration.[5] However, despite these efforts to control migration, due to the increasing number of asylum seekers especially in Western Europe and Australia have built a public perception that migration policies have tendencies to fail.[6] Moreover, in the United States, the number of illegal migrants has been continuously increasing since 1960s and there are about 11millinion who are illegally living in the US today.[7] Then it would be important to question how migration policies work in the international politics today. Stephen Castles argues it is important to examine the elements that drive such migration processes. According to Castles there are about three main reasons that drive migration policy failure; factors arising from the social dynamics of the migratory process, globalization, and North-South relationships and factors within political systems.[8] The purpose of this essay is to evaluate Castles arguments on why migration policies fail. It will first start with explaining Castles key arguments on why migration policies fail, and evaluating his view on policy â€Å"failure†. It will then criticise Castles argument by using Gary Freeman’s argument on immigration politics in liberal democratic countries. Even though Freeman’s argument of migration polices in liberal democratic states is more applicable than Castles argument it will conclude by criticising both Castles and Freemans’ conceptual frameworks on migration policies. Factors Unmake Migration Policy One of the dominant approaches in forming migration policies until these days is neoclassical theory. It has had played important role in forming migration policies and it is indeed important role in migration studies.[9] This theory is focuses on why individuals migrate from one country to another by using comparison of the relative costs and benefits of remaining home or moving.[10] The key assumptions of neoclassical theory is that potential migrants have good knowledge of wage level and job opportunities in destination countries and that economic factor are the most important reasons for potential migrants.[11] It is also often defined as push-pull factors. Push-factors are economic, political hardships in most poor states and developing countries, and pull-factors include comparative benefits in developed countries such as political freedoms, better economic and employment opportunities.[12] The theory sees migrants as market-players â€Å"who have all information for their opt ions and freedom to make rational choices.†[13] Such assumption of the theory however have been criticised that it does not provide proper evidence to explain or prove actual migration movements today and also predicting migration movement for the future. Stephen Castles argues that neoclassical approach to migration enables to achieve appropriate migration policies because it ignores historical experience of migration movements.[14]According to Castles, there are mainly three reasons that fail migration policies today. Castles argues that it is important to understand historical experiences when setting immigration policies because it gives a better understanding to analyse the migration issues.[15] Castles provides a good example how guest workers policy failed in Germany in 1970s. At that time, policy makers recruited guest workers based on temporary residence principles that were formed when they were setting policies for guest workers. Even though employment opportunity declined, those unwanted guest workers never returned to their countries, but rather, brought in their families and eventually ended up staying for the long period and became as minority in Germany.[16] Castles insight is that once migration processes start they will continue and expand as an ongoing social process. He argues that families and their networks play crucial role in affecting potential migration to make a decision to migrate to destination countries. He argues that all migrants are not just individuals who react to market but social beings who are trying to seek for better outcomes for their lives by actively and continuously building migration processes. Moreover, Castles argues that there are structural dependencies in both sending and receiving states. In many developing countries there are tendencies to support encourage people to move to other states in order to reduce unemployment and in receiving countries there are structural tendencies that they need low-skilled labours in order to fulfil jobs that many local not willing to do.[17] Other factor that unmakes migration policy in Castles words is globalization and the division of North and South. Especially, Castl es emphases that globalization and recent North-South relations play important role in understanding international migration flow today. The number of migrants in North has been increasing and it is mainly Castles says because of the huge gap of inequality between North and South. Migration policies will always fail if they properly address reasons and patterns of economic and force migration movement of global inequality.[18] Moreover, Castles insight is that globalization has an inherent structure that widens the gap between and North and South and cultural and technological mean of overcoming this gap. Moreover, because of national logic inherence especially in European Countries, transnational networks would undermine migration control.[19] The last factor that causes policy failure according to Castles is political system. Migration policy process and transnational networks should be related to an analysis how migration policies formed in states and supranational bodies includi ng examining interests, how they are articulated and how political system functions because this is where most policy failure or as he terms â€Å"unintended consequences of policy† could be explained.[20] In addition, Castles says that most migration policies have tendencies to form for short-term for electoral periods and that it should be changed into long-term as migration is a long-term process. In addition, a huge gap of wealth and and power in the emerging global order mean that not all citizens are equal and this might be the basis of a new system of global economic stratification.[21] In Castles argues that â€Å"migration is all about regulating North-south relationships and maintaining inequality.† He argues that migration control will be successful when the gap of inequality will be reduced in the future.[22] Given the Castles three main perspectives on migration failure above, it shows that he focuses on more structural change of social process and on inevitable circumstances caused by those social changes and globalization that produces gap and inequality of North-South. It could be said that Castles argument is broad and general, and as he defined it as a normative sense. His definition â€Å"failure† of migration policies seems to be more â€Å"unintended failure† that caused by those factors noted above. His view on inequality of North-South that driven by globalization seems to have quite sceptical view on liberal ideology and on those receiving liberal states (North) which he believes is one of the main factors to make people to migrate to other countries today. In this sense, Castles argument on inequality of North-South does not give much answer to a question why migration policies fail. His argument is too vague, broad and general that it fails in terms of giving s pecific and persuasive explanation on migration failure. What he argues about policy failure is rather inherent and natural phenomena caused by inequality than more realistic. It is true that the number of migrants from South moving to North is the fastest growing looking at migration trends today as Castles argued.[23] Then it leads to an important question how immigration politics and policies might function in liberal democratic countries. Gap Hypothesis of Migration Policy The term gap hypothesis is when implementations of immigration control policies have different outcomes as they were made in the first place and such gap between stated policies and their results are growing wider.[24] One of the most notable arguments of gap hypothesis is Gary Freeman arguments on how migration policies work in liberal democratic states. Freeman’s perspective is focused on more domestic structure of migration countries.[25] According to Freeman in liberal democratic countries the number of migrants has been continuously growing despite of public negative opinion on migrants. He says that it is because in most liberal democracies immigration policies are never reflected by general public they are ignored and information on migration is quite poorly articulated.[26] It leads to an interesting question who, then distributes and influences in forming migration policy in those countries.[27] According to Freeman there are three factors that affect policy making pr ocedure in liberal democratic countries-individual voters, organized group and state actors. He suggests that in order to have a better understanding on what forces migration polices it is important to understand how public officials interact with organized groups during elections because in democratic states as he says, organized groups have power to control politics of immigration.[28] Organized opinion is more applicable because it reflects the distribution on costs and benefits of immigration and they have much more impact than general public because in politics vote-maximizers find it in their electoral interest to fulfil it.[29] Freeman defines it as â€Å"client-politics†. In client politics, particular or well organized groups have strong interests in working with officials who have responsibilities in making migration policies. Most active and influential actors and beneficiaries are employers who are dependent on unskilled workforce, businesses and ethnic groups are a constituency with important resources that can advocate their interest.[30] Others, who have to bear their costs, do not have such position to influence policy makers and general public who have to compete with jobs, housing, school and government services have difficulties to solve such problems, and face difficulties in influencing immigration policies.[31] Such environment of policy making process in liberal democratic countries leads to a structure where migration clients can actually influence migration policy making process and where immigration policies are influenced by groups who actually benefit from them. Freeman’s argument on how client politics works in liberal democratic is certainly more applicable than Castles view, because it focuses on how migration policies actually function in liberal democratic states. Freeman argues that migration policy making process is influenced by migration politics which involves particular actors distribute in making. Such client politics model in liberal democratic countries shows why immigration policies tendencies of different outcomes. Even though Freeman’s model of client politics more acceptable, still there is a lack of providing clearer framework in order to explain on migration issues today. It is more bias of those classical migrant societies such as United States, Canada and Australia. This also leaves quite sceptical view whether Freeman’s conceptual framework will always work for other emerging migrant countries in the future. Freeman’s insight is that new emerging migration states will follow those liberal democratic states when forming migration policies because migration policy making process and structure of liberal democratic countries. However, Freeman does not pay much attention to asylum seeker and its policies in those liberal democratic states. According to James Hampshire, in order to explain asylum seekers and why states receive them is more a complicated issue because there will be other actors and organizations who are going to be involved.[32] It is then, hard to apply F reeman’s argument of migrant politics. According to United Nations High Commission for Refugees asylum trends report 2012, the United States, France, United Kingdom, Germany and Sweden were the top five receiving states, together accounting for more than 57% of all new asylum claims submitted in 44 industrialized countries.[33] The overall numbers of asylum seekers were about 274,200 in 2012. It clearly shows that Freeman’s framework of does not provide clear explanation of asylum seekers and its policies in migration politics either. Conclusion Stephen Castles argument on why migration policies fail gives a good explanation on how migration is processed and how has been historically changing. He argues that migration should be perceived as a social process that has inherence of changing continuously once migration process starts. Castles argues how globalization and division of North-South affects contemporary migration process, and how the gap of inequality between North-South continuously widens. Migration policy failure might be unintended but because of political system within receiving countries. The problem with Castles argument is that it could be too broad and general to analyse migration policy failure in receiving countries. Freeman’s client politics seems to be more applicable in terms of explaining migration politics, policy failure in liberal democratic states and also in terms of how organized groups are influential and involved in policy making process in those countries. However, Freeman’s argument framework of immigration politics is also problematic because he fails explaining asylum seeker policies which are quite controversial issues these days. Moreover, as noted above, there is quite huge number of asylum seekers and liberal democratic countries are the top five receiving states in the world. Both Castles and Freeman’s argument provide some perusable explanation of migration policies, however, both of them fail in terms of providing clear explanation of complex issues of migration policies today. There are other scholars who have different perspective on how migration politics, however, due to the limits of this essay it was heavily focused on Castles and Freeman view on how migration politics work and why immigration policies fail. Bibliography Castles, S Miller, M (2009) The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World, Palgrave Macmillan Castles, S (2004) ‘The Factors That Make and Unmake Migration Policies’, International Migration Review, Vol. 38, p.852-884 Castles, S (2004) ‘Why Migration Policies Fail’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol.27, pp. 205-227 Cornelius, W. A. (Ed.) (2004) Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective, Stanford University Press, Freeman, G (1995) ‘Modes of Immigration Policies in Liberal Democratic States’, International Migration Review, vol.29, pp.881-901 Hampshire, J (2008) Disembedding Liberalism?: from Givens, T., Leal, D. L. (Eds.), Immigration Policy and Security: US, European, and Commonwealth Perspectives. Routledge Pew Research ‘U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Population Trends, 1990-2012’: (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/09/23/unauthorized-trends/#All) (accessed on 23.03.14) Portes, A Borocz, J (1989) ‘Contemporary Immigration: Theoretical Perspectives on Its Determinants and Modes of Incorporation’, International Migration Review, vol. 23, pp.606-630 United Nations, Trends in International Migrant Stock: (http://esa.un.org/unmigration/wallchart2013.htm) (accessed on 23.0314) UNCHR ‘Asylum Trends 2012: Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries’, (http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/unhcr108.pdf) (accessed on 25.03.14) 1 [1] United Nations, Trends in International Migrant Stock: (http://esa.un.org/unmigration/wallchart2013.htm) (accessed on 23.0314) [2] S. Castles M. Miller (2009) The Age of Migration :International Population Movements in the Modern World, Palgrave Macmillan, p.2 [3] S. Castles M. Miller (2009) p.3 [4] S. Castles(2004) ‘The Factors That Make and Unmake Migration Policies’, International Migration Review, Vol. 38, p.856-857 [5] S. Castles(2004) p.857 [6] S. Castles(2004) p.857 [7] Pew Research ‘U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Population Trends, 1990-2012’: (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/09/23/unauthorized-trends/#All) (accessed on 23.03.14) [8] S. Castles(2004)‘Why Migration Policies Fail’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol.27, p.208 [9] S. Castles M. Miller (2009) pp.21-22 [10] S. Castles M. Miller (2009) pp.21-22 [11] S. Castles M. Miller (2009) pp.21-22 [12] A. Portes J.Borocz, (1989) ‘Contemporary Immigration: Theoretical Perspectives on Its Determinants and Modes of Incorporation’, International Migration Review, vol. 23, p.607 [13] S. Castles M. Miller (2009) p.23 [14] S. Castles(2004) p.208 [15] S. Castles(2004)‘Why Migration Policies Fail’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol.27, p.208-209 [16] S. Castles (2004) p.208, Cornelius, W. A. (Ed.) (2004) Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective, Stanford University Press, pp.225-230 [17] S. Castles (2004) ‘The Factors That Make and Unmake Migration Policies’, International Migration Review, vol. 38, pp.860-861 [18] S. Castles(2004) p.223 [19] S. Castles(2004) pp. 210-212 [20] S. Castles(2004) p.223 [21] S. Castles(2004) p.223 [22] S. Castles(2004) pp. 212-223 [23] S. Castles(2004) p.210 [24] Cornelius, W. A. (Ed.) (2004) pp.4-5 [25] J. Hampshire (2008) Disembedding Liberalism?: from Givens, T., Leal, D. L. (Eds.), Immigration Policy and Security: US, European, and Commonwealth Perspectives. Routledge, pp.110-111 [26] G. Freeman(1995) ‘Modes of Immigration Policies in Liberal Democratic States’, International Migration Review, vol.29, pp.882-883 [27] G. Freeman(1995) p.883 [28] G. Freeman(1995) p.885 [29] G. Freeman(1995) p.886 [30] J. Hampshire (2008) p.112 [31] G. Freeman(1995) p.885 [32] J. Hampshire (2008) pp.112-113 [33] UNCHR ‘Asylum Trends 2012: Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries’ (http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/unhcr108.pdf) (accessed on 25.03.14) Roy Lichtenstein: Art Style Analysis Roy Lichtenstein: Art Style Analysis A work is created when it is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate. (copyright.gov). A derivative work is a work based upon one or more preexisting works art reproduction in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a derivative work. (copyright.gov). Looking at the many pieces of Roy Lichtensteins art and researching the terms created and derivative, he is seen to be controversial because many people consider him to be a copy cat artist. At the time Lichtenstein was producing his prints in question there were copyright laws in effect but it seems that they were never put into action. The Boston Globe produced a story about Lichtenstein titled Roy Lichtenstein Creator or Copy Cat? Deconstructing Roy Li chtenstein  © 2000 David Barsaolu MFA. That article is not the first of its kind; the first article was produced January 31, 1964 by Life magazine titled, Is He the Worst Artist in America? After reading these articles and looking at the prints I noticed that they do have a very close resemblance to what the United States copy right laws prohibit. I happen to think not but I am sure that as there are as many admires of his art and talent as there are probably just as many who disagree with my opinion. I find it quite intriguing that not one of the artists has sued Mr. Lichtenstein for monetary reimbursement or even document to settle out of court. Maybe at that time there was some sort of loop holes for creative art that kept copyright laws at bay. Whatever the reason Roy has become very well known and made a great living with his art. The 1940s were the beginning of Lichtensteins career as an artist with is first drawing class in 1941 at Ohio State University prior to that he graduated from Franklin, then studied anatomical drawing at the Art Students League and participated in a few exhibitions, then he was drafted in to the U.S. Army in 1943 and sketched some works of soldiers and landscapes. His father becomes ill and dies January of 1946 dies. Roy is discharged from the Army late January. Lichtenstein spends theses 10 years getting formal training and taking part in many exhibitions. June 12, 1949 Roy marries Isabel Wilson. The 1950 was quite a year for getting established and becoming a known artist for Roy, he held many jobs from 1951-1957 some of them lasting only a few months, and his first son is born in 1954. Roy continues to be seen at exhibitions but at more popular venues with better known artists. In 1956 Roy creates his first photo pop work by lithograph Ten Dollar Bill and in March his second son i s born. In 1957 Roy begins to use abstract expression style in his paintings familiar work is Donald Duck. Abstract paintings are shown for the first time in June 1959. January 1961 he exhibits abstract paintings made with a torn bed sheet by applying paint to them. Then later that summer Look Mickey is the first of a panel from a comic strip that is pained with Benday dots made from a dog brush dipped in paint, you can see he also uses his first balloon dialogue. Roy then creates his first consumer paintings for advertisers, tries new techniques tondo painting, diptych painting, and blue with white to duplicate reproductions. 1961 proved to be a great year in October Roy received a $400.00 a month stipend from the Leo Castelli Gallery and has a trial separation from his wife. In 1962 he begins to use turpentine soluble acrylic paint but did not stray away from oil paint for the simulated Benday dots. Early summer of 1962 Roys pen drawings are shown for the first time and his consum er goods and comic strip art is shown early fall on the west coast in a gallery. In 1963 Roy pained his first large scale work and it was commissioned by Philip Johnson to create a mural, for the New York State Pavilion at the 1964 Worlds Fair in Flushing Meadows, New York. Roys first European exhibition was later that summer. Roy divorces his wife in 1965 and she take custody of the kids he then creates a series of ceramic heads with co artist Hui Ka Kwong, experiments with modern motif and that autumn stops working with ceramics. In 1966 Roy stops putting words on his canvas, in April Roy illustrates the cover of Newsweek magazine the entire edition is devoted to POP Art, and in the autumn 1967 he collaborates to create a series of sculptures made of brass, tinted glass, marble and other materials. In 1968 he creates is first repeated design modular paintings and stretcher frame paintings, Time magazine cover features Kennedy painting and a Rendering of a Gun at the end of the yea r he married Dorothy Herzka. In Osaka, Japan seascape films are shown in 1970 that Roy filmed and he sold painting #6 for $75,000.00 the highest paid for work of art at that time for any living artist. In 1971 Mirrors was shown publicly, his films of seascapes were shown, and in ducted in to the American Academy of Arts and Science in Boston.1973 trompe-loeil and Cubist Still Lifes are used with faux wood grain pattern for the first time, 1974 begins influenced work by Italian Futurism, and entablatures series using metallic colors mixing sand with paint to highlight surface texture. 1975 starts a series influenced by Purists Artists, 1976 paints Office Still Lifes, Completes Entablature Paintings, creates many self-portraits in Futurist style, and Warhol creates a silkscreen Lichtenstein. 1977 Roy starts a series based on Surrealists artists, Skowhegan Medal for Painting is awarded, and BMW commissions Roy to design outside of race car later driven in the year at Le Mans. In 1980 R oy is awarded honorary Doctorate of Fine Arts from Southampton College in New York and in 1980 paintings and sculpture and from 1970s and 80s are touring America, Europe and Japan and 1989 his painting Torpedo.Los! sold for 5.5 million joining two other living artists whose work brings in as much. In 1990 Roy begins and Interior series painted with sponges that are shown in 1991, commissioned in 1992 for a 64 foot high sculpture for the Summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain. In 1993 Roy contributes a cover image for Fredrick Tutens book, creates two giant pieces of art, Grrrrrrrrrr! appears on the front of ARTnews, and begins a series of nude female works. April 30, 1997 the last interview ever given by Roy, Singapore Brushstroke is the last constructed artwork installed, and September 29, Roy Lichtenstein dies. I chose three pieces of work from three different time periods in Roys life as a focus. Each piece is from a period that is important how he creates his work and how he develops his style. Washington Crossing the Delaware 1 is oil on canvas 26*32 in 1951, is a form of abstract expressionist and is painted very child like. George Washings is what catches your eye at the front of the boat. All the lines are simple and the people are drawn simple and the colors are dark. The BMW 320i that was designed for the Le Mans 24-hour race in 1977 was clearly a car that had already seen what was on the road ahead by looking at the sun shining and the stretches of road on it. You see his style of the comic strip on it with the long lines suggesting super speed and his famous Benday dots on the design. Last I chose the Barcelona Head 1992 as the last to show that no matter what the media he uses and what he does that since he has developed his style he continues with consistency. The sculpture was was done in the spirit of the Catalan architect Antonio Gaudi and placed on the rebuilt water front. What I have not touched on is that Roy is considered controversial because many of his works of art are out right copy cats and that he was never accused by the original artist but was later confronted by articles about his work. I dont have a opinion about this and not much to say on the matter but it was his early practice to copy Picassos work also. I perceive it of his style and I do know that what he has created on his own is very original and wonderful to admire and pleasing to the eye at least for me Sources used Roy Lichtenstein Creator or Copy Cat? Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein. David Barsaolu MFA. 2000. January 28, 2010. http://www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructingroylichtenstein/395941200/. www.HYPERLINK http://www.copyright.gov/title17. January 28copyright.govHYPERLINK http://www.copyright.gov/title17. January 28/title17. January 28, 2010. http://www.image-duplicator.com/main.php?decade=80. January 29, 2010. Lawrence, Alloway, Roy Lichtenstein, Modern Master Series Vol I, Cross River Press LTD, 1983.

The Future as Portrayed in Brave New World :: Brave New World

The Future as Portrayed in Brave New World     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚      Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World opens in a technically advanced future world. In the beginning of this book, we see the Director of World Hatcheries lead the new hatchery students on a tour of a Conditioning Center in London where babies are produced in bottles and pre-sorted to determine which class level they will be born into. These class level range from Alpha-plus, the highest level, to Epsilon-minus, the lowest. There are no parents, and babies are conditioned from birth to learn certain behaviors. All diseases have been eliminated, and when people are feeling down, they just take soma, a wonder drug. Also, people are conditioned from birth not to love one person, so there is no marriage and most people have many lovers. There is no God; instead, Henry Ford is worshipped as the god Ford. Another accomplishment of this society is the elimination of aging. Bernard Marx has unorthodox viewpoints and is outcast as an eccentric. He likes being alone, but in this society being alone is discouraged. His isolation from society has made him very different from everyone else. His only friend is Helmholtz Watson, an accomplished intellect who writes government propaganda. Watson has grown war of life as it is, and his supervisors have him under close watch. Two co-workers are discussing Lenina Crowne, another worker, in a changing room. They act as if she were property, able to be bought and sold. Bernard is disgusted by this, so he decides to ask Lenina to go to a Savage Reservation in New Mexico. Bernard visits the Director for permission to go. The Director tells a story of when he went to a Savage Reservation with Linda, a pretty colleague. During their visit,Linda was lost, and the Director had to leave. So Bernard and Lenina go to the Savage Reservation, which is inhabited by Indians. They quickly find Linda among the Indians. At first they do not realize who she is, but she explains what happened. Linda is aged and obese. Also, Linda has a son named Jo hn who is the Director's child. John is educated and mature, having read Shakespeare (forbidden in civilization). Bernard takes the two back to London for study. Once back, Linda takes too much soma, so she falls into a coma. John is displayed by Bernard, who becomes a hero.

John Rambo and Jack Ryan: Men America Can Count On? :: essays research papers

John Rambo and Jack Ryan are two amazing men. They are honest, trustworthy, heroic, never crack under pressure, and stand for truth, justice, and the American way. Sylvester Stallone and Harrison Ford do their best attempting to make the audience believe that men such as Rambo and Ryan actually exist. Try as they might, not even Stallone or Ford can convince me that men of this caliber actually live. Rambo is able to not only foil his corrupt, superior American officer trying to sabotage his mission, but eliminate an entire army of Vietnamese and Russian soldiers, and save a handful of POWs. Jack Ryan defies the entire government and the largest Colombian drug cartel because he stands for the â€Å"truth.† Sorry, but I am not buying it. An interesting aspect of the two films, Rambo / First Blood Part II (George P. Cosmatos, 1985) and Clear and Present Danger (Phillip Noyce, 1994) is the differences the two men display, despite the fact that what they represent is extremely similar. John Rambo is more of a renegade, a decorated soldier of the Vietnam "conflict," with only his mentor Colonel Trautman at his side. He was jailed for blowing up a small town in Oregon (a detail from the first film). The mindless, fickle public would then overlook all of the great things he did in the war because he blew up an "innocent town." On the other hand, Jack Ryan is an important member of the CIA, a very noble position to hold. It is also revealed in the film that Jack Ryan is a very noble man, not violent unless absolutely forced to be. Little could change society's view of him. Within their own films, Rambo and Jack Ryan are the only men capable of "saving" America from the evils that plague it . The difference is that Rambo is looked at as a violent killing machine, whereas Jack Ryan is seen as a man who will do only what is necessary to "do the right thing." In a simple plot comparison, Danger seems much more in-depth and intelligent than Rambo. Rambo is sent to get pictures of POW’s, and must not engage the enemy in combat. Jack Ryan has to uncover the scandal, and the twists and turns that are ahead, with many characters being introduced over many locations. However, upon closer inspection, it appears that Danger is only hiding under a lot of technical jargon and piles upon piles of details.

Chicago Gangs :: Gang Essays

From the late 1800’s up through the present date, musical theater has changed. Though customs and love for the theater will always be carried on, origins, trends, and styles will change throughout time. â€Å"The American musical was born long before European operetta crossed the Atlantic. In The American Musical Stage Before 1800. Julian Mates tells us that â€Å"America’s early theatres were essentially lyric theatres†¦In America, no earlier dramatic forms existed, and the musical stage became our only tradition (musicals101.com)†. During America’s first hundred years, the favorite musical entertainments during the time were variety musical shows. In the 1860’s and 70’s, Pantomime was a the main Broadway staple. In these types of shows, clown characters were taken and placed in plots based on Mother Goose stories. Also seen was the insertion of popular songs whenever the audience needed a breather. The Pantomime form disappeared completely from American stages by 1880.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  From 1879 until 1884 the variety team of Edward Harrigan and Tony Hart produced and performed in musical farces set on the streets of New York. The main focus of the shows was on lower class immigrant life, depicting real-life problems as interracial tensions, political corruption and gang violence. Harrigan and Hart are best known as the creators of musical comedy. They made these problems into harmless humor. â€Å"Harrigan and Hart’s shows had scores in the style of contemporary popular music with simple melodies and lyrics, lots of sentiment and a wry sense of street-smart humor (musicals 101.com).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In 1878, Gilbert and Sullivan’s HMS Pinafore premiered in the United States. Their arrival sparked an overwhelming response from the people, the craze that was, was known as â€Å"Pinafore-Mania†. The songs that were sung in the show became the language of the people, and became part of everyday conversation. Even though it seemed all was good, some were not pleased and happy with the two â€Å"invaders†. â€Å"In the century since Gilbert and Sullivan, people on both sides of the Atlantic have bitched about â€Å"invasions† coming from the other side. America and Britain have continually sent each other their best shows for over a hundred years. If the balance tilts a bit every now and then, no matter: it will shift again (musical 101.com)†. With the growth of the American cities and with the Industrial Revolution going on, the theater-fans were becoming more sophisticated. With this, the homegrown musical entertainment, due to the success of Gilbert and Sullivan, looked second rate.

Leadership in the 21st Century: Contrasting Views of Leadership and Their Utility for My Practice

HML 1001: Leadership of change S. McGowan. June 2008 Leadership in the 21st Century: Contrasting Views of Leadership and their Utility for My Practice Introduction In this paper I will examine two modern views of leadership. The leadership models I have decided to review are Servant-Leadership and Discretionary Leadership and my aim is to describe them, explore some of their similarities and differences and consider their usefulness for my own practice. Servant-Leadership Robert K Greenleaf defined Servant-Leadership in1970 in his essay ‘The Servant as Leader’ (Greenleaf, 1970). Greenleaf attributes the inspiration for his idea to the novel ‘Journey to the East’ by Herman Hesse (1932), where the central character Leo; servant to a party of travellers, proves ultimately to be the vital member of the group, whose mission fails without him. The servant-leadership theory is based on a model of empowerment and contrasts sharply with models of leadership that are based on power. Instead of concentrating on the acquisition of power and control, servant-leaders focus on helping people to grow and fulfil their potential. Greenleaf states: the servant-leader is servant first†¦ It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions’. (Greenleaf 1970) The servant-leadership theory advocates the role of leader as serv ing rather than controlling. By serving the needs of their workforce, clients and communities servant-leaders can harness the full force of an empowered group. Servant-leadership models promote a sense of community and an holistic approach to work and, ultimately, society. Steven R Covey, vice chairman of Franklin Covey, the world’s largest management and leadership development organisation, described four roles of leadership in his keynote speech to the Greenleaf Centre’s (www. greenleaf. org) 1999 conference (Covey 1999). These are: (i)Setting an Example: Leaders must work hard, contribute and model integrity, humility and the values of servant-leadership. Integrity breeds confidence and generates followers. ii)Pathfinding: Creating a vision that involves and inspires, and that through empowerment, mobilises the efforts of others. This way, strategic planning is values based and derived from an understanding of people’s needs. This is in stark contrast to power models, which espouse individualistic missions and goals for organisations to be ‘herded’ towards. (iii)Alignment: Aligning the systems and struct ures of an organisation to serve the agreed task and vision. Values need to be ‘institutionalised’ and language and action must be consistent. iv)Empowerment: This is what Covey describes as the ‘fruit’ of the first three roles: When you have a common vision and value system, and you have put into place structures and systems reinforcing that vision, when you have institutionalised that kind of moral authority – its like lifeblood feeding the culture, the feelings of people, the norms, the mores – feeding it constantly†¦You can†¦release the enormous human creativity, the human ingenuity, the resourcefulness, the intelligence of people to the accomplishment of those purposes. Everything connects together: the quality of the relationships, the common purpose and values. You find that people will organize themselves. They’ll manage themselves. People are drawn to doing their own best thing and accomplishing that worthy purpose, that vision. That’s empowerment! (Covey 1999) Max DePree has famously defined leadership as ‘a serious meddling in other people’s lives’ (DePree 2002). DePree is concerned with the interdependence of members of organisations and has argued that leadership can’t be just about the individual: When we think about the people with whom we work, people on whom we depend, we can see that without each individual, we are not going to go very far as a group. By ourselves, we suffer serious limitations. Together we can be something wonderful. (DePree 1990) DePree coined the term ‘Fiduciary Leadership’; one of the three things he believes to be vital to servant-leadership. Fiduciary leadership describes a model of leadership based on trust and reliance. With this model, leadership is a set of opportunities and accountabilities bestowed (temporarily) by followers, in the trust of the leader. Central to this concept is the idea that the ‘led’ are consenting to be led and this idea lies at the heart of democratic society. In the 18th Century Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Anglo–Irish statesman and political philosopher wrote: It is the love of the people; it is their attachment to their government, from the sense of the deep stake they have in such a glorious institution, which gives you both your army and your navy, and infuses into both that liberal obedience, without which your army would be a base rabble, and your navy nothing but rotten timber. Burke1775) With regard to fiduciary leadership Burke said: All persons possessing any portion of power ought to be strongly and awfully impressed with an idea that they act in trust. (Burke1790) And DePree says: Leadership is not a position†¦promotion has never made anyone a leader. Leadership is a fiduciary calling. Inherent in this calling is the knowledge that hope plays a critical part in the lives of fo llowers. Fiduciary leaders design, build and then then serve inclusive communities by liberating human spirit and potential’ (Depree 2002) Here again, then, the themes of leaders serving and harnessing human potential in organisations that are communities. Depree’s second ‘necessity’ vital to servant-leadership is broadenning the definition of leadership competence. He describes five areas of compertence: Firstly, defining and expressing reality for an organisation; second, vision and strategy; third, enabling creative people; fourth, transforming – by learning, risking and changing – and finally, unleashing the potential of all members of an organisation. Depree’s referrence to ‘transforming’ is important. Servant-leadership and fiduciary leadership are both examples of Transformational Leadership (Burns 1978). Transformational leadership is concerned with bringing about progress and accomplishing success through communication, influence and empowerment, as opposed to Transactional approaches, which favour activities such as resource management, and management by policy, proceedure and control. Transactional leaders prefer systematic approaches, organisational hierarchy, straightforward objectives and tried and tested techniques. They manage efficiently but are in danger of producing mediocrity and suffocating innovation and creativity (Fairholm 1991). Transformational leaders reject the rigidity of transactionalists, arguing that ideas such as Scientific Management (Taylor, 1910), with their focus on controlling the minute details of the means of production are restrictive , dehumanising, alienating (Marx, 1959) and, ultimately outdated. Conversely, the transformational model can be criticised as inefficient, wasteful and lacking focus and direction. The third of Depree’s three neccesities for servant-leadership is a clear moral purpose. He argues that leadership requires moral purpose to give it meaning, measures and a worthwhile goal. Keen on lists, DePree desribes six ‘signs’ of moral purpose. These are: (i)An acceptance of Human Authenticity: Organisations comprise individuals with a ‘cornucopia of gifts and talents’ and not just their ascribed roles or inherent characteristics. (ii)Rights: All are entitled to the right to belong; to ownership; to opportunity; to inclusion; to a covonatal relationship as ‘members’ of the organisation. iii)Truth: Consistent, multifaceted honesty is crucial to moral leadership (iv)Vulnerability: An absence of ego and openness to criticism. Willing to listen to others, to experiment, to make mistakes and to learn from them. (v)Equitable Distribution of Results: Distributing ‘profits’ fairly is a necessary and motivating feature of an org anisation that demands high levels of contribution from its members. Results or profits can be financial or else less tangiable outputs. (vi)Personal Restraint: Vulgar displays of power, wealth and status are offensive and demotivating to others. Ultimately, then, the servant-leadership theory regards leadership as a moral calling. Greenleaf’s leadership theory also has its basis in morality and latterly he concerned himself with the question of managing change in society, citing examples of immoral, senseless and destructive problems in the world. His view was that the system to deliver the necessary change would be the one that works best – in his view servant-leadership: The difference [between leader first and servant-leader] manifests itself in the care taken by the servant first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and the most difficult to administer, is this: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? (Greenleaf, 1970). To read Greenleaf and his followers, one might conclude that servant-leaders are essentially ordinary people drawn naturally, perhaps randomly, from the servant ‘classes’. People with philanthropic and selfless natures, who assume leadership positions only to spread their good deeds more widely. Interfering (DePree 1993) ‘do-gooders’ best suited to social and charitable enterprises! However servant leadership places as much emphasis on leadership as it does on servitude, even if the servant has to come first. Powerful servant-leaders can be found at the head of many serious, succesful, profit making organisations (e. g. Herb Kelleher, CEO South West Airlines, Jack Lowe, chairman of TDI Industries and Rich McClure, president of UniGroup Inc. [all US]) and, most recently, servant-leadership is the leadership philosophy espoused by newly elected President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea, who has called for servant-leadership as his primary presidential leadership vision (Hyun-kyung, 2008): Military leaders or professional politicians will be unable to manage the economy any longer mainly because they were born to wield power, instead of serving citizens. These leaders attempt to rule the country, while managers serve their customers. As a result, the boss is destined to wane, while servant leaders achieve mutually beneficial goals for the community. (Myung-bak, 2002) If we look more closely, then, servant-leadership, far from rejecting the idea that some people are natural leaders, actually shares many ideas with ‘trait’ models of leadership. Trait theories date back to the first half of the twentieth century and Weber’s thory of leadership-charisma (Webber 1947) is a good example. Trait theorists argue that leaders neither emerge naturally as a result of a personal ‘epiphany’, nor are they created by experience or training, but that they are born. Born leaders are the result of natural selection (Darwin 1859). Nicholson (2000) describes how evolutionary psychology has produced ‘alpha-males’: hard wired individuals with natural leadership qualities driven, by high levels of testosterone, to seek an optimal seratonin buz by taking charge and achieving personal success. Grrrrr! Foremost among these natural leadership qualites is charisma. Charismatic Leadership (House 1977, Burns 1978) concerns itself with the impact of charisma on the leader/follower relationship and the effect of charismatic leadership on the motivation and morale of followers. Charisma is regarded as an inate quality, a charm that compells others to follow. Freud described charisma as an ability to realise compliance from others (Freud 1922). Charismatic leaders are heroic, energetic and driven by dissatisfaction with the status quo. Although generally seen as a transactional model, charismatic leadership, when paired with a moral basis, is far from inconsistent with servant-leadership. In fact, many of the qualities required of the servant-leader such as vision, integrity and empowering others can be regarded as extremely attractive and thus charismatic qualites. Indeed Jesus Christ, cited by many servant-leadership disciples as the ultimatate servant-leader, was undoubtedly a charismatic leader. Discretionary Leadership In contrast to servant-leadership – which, whilst advocating a different moral basis for leadership, retains traditional ideas of hierarchy and organisational structure – discretionary or ‘shared’ leadership theory recognises the need for a number of leaders with different viewpoints and responsibilities to coexist and cooperate in organisations. Discretionary leadership has emerged as a model suitable for complex modern day organisations (Kakabadse, 2000) with complex environments, contexts, and structures or, as Hunt put it, ‘macro-variables’ (Hunt 1981). Modern organisations are frequently network based, where the sum of a wide and diverse set of functions and departments combine to form a ‘virtual’ whole. Discretionary leadership places high value on an organisations’ ability to respond effectively to multiple agendas and stakeholders in a variety of situations simultaneously: a challenge that would be impossible to meet with conventional hierarchical organisations where leadership authority is held by a small number of senior managers. In essence, modern complex organisations need to coordinate the actions of a broad group of employees who adopt leadership behaviours, when and as required, to tackle the issues they face. Discretion would seem to be a two way process with this model: Senior leaders still define the degree of leadership authority that is delegated at their discretion, whilst employees are expected to adopt leadership roles, when necessary, at their discretion. Not completely un-hierarchical, but certainly less paternal and more organic than traditional models of leadership. Thus roles are defined in terms of the breadth of their discretion. At one extreme, some employees will have minimal discretion and be expected to carry out their duties in strict accordance with prescribed procedures – a model akin to that of production line workers in a scientific management system (Taylor 1910). At the other extreme, the CEO of an organisation has ultimate discretion. Between these two extremes it is vital that the quantity and quality of available leadership is commensurate with the needs of the organisation. Discretionary leadership, it is argued, is not only a suitable model for complex network-based organisations, but also the model of leadership that will naturally emerge in response to the pace and pressure of organisational change in the twenty-first century: The nature of role discretionary boundaries is increasingly determined by personal views concerning the challenges leaders face and the nature of those with whom they interact†¦Thus, the idiosyncratic nature of the organisation, the peculiarities of each leader role and the characteristics of each individual occupying such a role, are critical considerations in determining role boundaries and parameters. Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 1999) Organisations that require/generate substantial numbers of discretionary leaders will, by definition, include a multitude of visions and ideologies. Achieving cohesion is the vital key for this group model of leadership to be effective. This is achieved by those in charge skilfully conducting multiple conversations (or ‘polylogue’ – Kakabadse, 2005); by discretionary leaders reflectively understanding their roles and relationships and acting responsibly, and by promoting a shared philosophy, core vision and value system. Kouzmin has described this as the role of the ‘organisational architect’: The focus [for Contemporary leaders] has shifted increasingly to the role of the ‘organisational architect’. The principal contributing skill of architects is an ability to design and develop organisations; skills that require considerable creative insights and technical knowledge about how to analyse, design and stimulate complex, increasingly globalising, social and communication networks supported by rapidly advancing IT. Kouzmin et al. , 2007) With this model, leadership is not simply about goal-oriented control and coordination. Leaders need to properly understand the context in which actions are exercised and the appropriate mobilisation of others (Kakabadse, 2005). The modern organisation will be flatter, less hierarchical and based more on networks. It will be founded on interdependency, communication and the flow of ideas (supported by ever more sophisticated information techn ologies) rather than command and control models. With discretionary leadership employees will be incentivised to produce value by being fully and intelligently involved in the overall purpose of their organisation rather than alienated in the way that Marx (1959) has criticised scientific management (Taylor 1910). However, discretionary leadership also has its critics. Variations and tensions among workers in leadership roles can lead to negativity, whilst success is highly dependent on cohesion and the quality of interactions; both notoriously hard to control in network-based organisations: Where discretionary role analysis highlights variation of experience, capability, values, personality, behaviours, and the exercise of choice among the leaders of the organisation, tension and conflict become endemic with potentially disastrous implications for individuals and the organisation. (Finklestein and Hambrick, 1996) Globalisation, fast moving technological development, the increased recognition and value of social capital, multi-faceted demands and accountabilities, and the need to respond simultaneously and effectively to a number of agendas, means that organisations need different leadership models in the twenty-first century. Models of leadership that might have been appropriate to the manufacturing industries of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries now seem increasingly inappropriate to the educated, informed, skilled and sophisticated workforce of the present day, whether working in manufacturing or (more probably) in paper-based organisations or the service sector. It can, therefore, be argued that discretionary leadership is the ideal solution for the future, but only in a carefully esigned and managed system that maturely accepts the inherent will and ability to lead that is both needed and to be found within many key members of complex organisations. The utility of these ideas for me The leadership theories that I have chosen to examine might be considered to have much in common and it might seem that more radical alternatives could have been examined in order to better illustrate the contrast between theories. I have however chosen to focus on these models because of their resonance with my own i deas about leadership and their utility for a modern health service. I would also refute the view that servant leadership and discretionary leadership are very similar. Yes, they are both progressive, placing as they do an emphasis on employee empowerment and the importance of shared values and vision. However, servant leadership takes a rather traditional and paternalistic view of the structure of organisations and those destined to lead them, whilst discretionary leadership is based on a much more sophisticated understanding of the structural configuration of modern organisations. Personally, I have found utility in each of these models. As service lead for a new specialist mental health service, I am acutely aware of the complexity of modern day organisations as described by Hunt (1981) and Kakabadse (2000) in their explorations of discretionary leadership. The multifarious environmental, contextual and structural variables of the NHS epitomise the challenges recognised by advocates of this model. The NHS is also increasingly network based and is certainly the sum of a wide and diverse set of functions. For my own service, the ability to respond effectively to multiple agendas and stakeholders in a variety of situations simultaneously is vital. Our structure, although not completely without hierarchy, is relatively flat. The largest group of employees in my service are senior, professionally qualified practitioners including nurses, doctors, psychologists, social workers and occupational therapists. Each of these practitioners is responsible not only to me but also to their professional bodies and, as such, have a substantial degree of authority devolved to them, and broad freedoms to act and make decisions. The need to coordinate the actions of this broad group of employees is central to my role as service lead, as is the need for these well-paid individuals to accept and adopt leadership behaviours, when and as required, without undue recourse to management advice or consent. Discretionary leadership theory also recognises the need for a number of leaders with different viewpoints and responsibilities to coexist and co-operate in organisations. This is extremely pertinent to modern mental health services, which are both multi-disciplinary and multi-agency. With multi-disciplinary teams, each different discipline ideally brings unique professional skills and ideologies to the service, which are then combined to produce a multi-dimensional ‘whole’ befitting of a service aimed at meeting the holistic needs of diverse individuals. For me, the achievement of cohesion is certainly the vital key to realising this ideal and Kakabadse’s (2005) notion of ‘polylogue’ resonates with me. Similarly, modern mental health services exist as components of broader networks that transcend the traditional boundaries of the NHS. In order to run an effective service I need to manage interfaces with a wide and diverse range of partner agencies and stakeholders that include GPs and other referrers, social care agencies, specialist providers, the criminal justice system, drug services, community and faith groups, and service users and their carers. Pollywollydollylogue! Central to the achievement of cohesion in my service has been the promotion of a shared philosophy, vision and value system and Kouzmin’s (2007) concept of the ‘organisational architect’ appeals to me in this sense, with its emphasis on leaders’ responsibility for designing and developing organisations with shared vision and effective communication networks. This concept of shared vision is also found in servant-leadership. Covey (1999) emphasised the need for leaders to create a vision that involves and inspires, and that mobilises the efforts of others, and Depree’s (2002) third neccesity for servant-leadership was a clear moral purpose, arguing that leadership requires moral purpose to give it meaning. It is not surprising that such sentiments should find esonnance in the NHS, or any other care sector organisation that has its base in social morality, and we are reminded of Bevan’s vision for a national health service, available to everyone and free at the point of access, sixty years ago: The collective principle asserts that†¦ no society can legitimately call itself civilized if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means. (Bevan 1952) Interestingly, ‘moral purpose’ has played a significant role in influencing the development of my specialist field, Early Intervention in Psychosis (EI P), in this country. The introduction of this new model of mental health service has been extensively driven by a ‘bottom up’ approach that has witnessed the emergence of a ‘social movement’ for mental health reform (Bate et al, 2004): A diverse group of proponents, including statutory and non-statutory agencies, clinicians, service users and carer groups who are impatient for service reform and find commonality with the civil rights movement, equal rights for women campaigners and Gay Pride. Despite its diversity, this mental health social movement is connected by a shared view that that the suffering associated with the poor outcomes experienced by people with serious mental health problems is unnecessary, and largely a product of inadequate and ineffective services. It is argued that the kind of radical, transformational change required for mental health modernisation will not be achieved by top down, programmatic, transactional leadership approaches, but must be complemented by a grass roots desire for bold, sustainable change. Harnessing this shared sense of moral purpose has proved crucial to achieving cohesion in our complex service and is constantly and intentionally reinforced through team meetings, training and supervision. DePree’s (2002) notion of ‘fiduciary leadership’ also resonates and the sense that my position is one of responsibility and accountability both to and for a group of staff remains important for me. Having emerged from the ‘ranks’, my painfully slow rise to mediocrity might be seen as a good example of Greenleaf’s model, where individuals accept leadership, with modest reluctance, as a means to better serve others. In reality, my pathway has been determined by a combination of bossiness, laziness and poverty, fueled by a growing sense of moral purpose and by a personal philosophy that ‘it is better to lead, than be led by a w*nker’. I am, however, genuinely drawn to many of the core values of the servant-leader model: I believe that as leader I must work hard, contribute and model the values of the service. I believe that language and action must be consistent and that integrity breeds trust and confidence. I am keen to drive progress through experimentation and risk-taking but recognise interdependence with work colleagues and that change and improvement will only be delivered by harnessing human potential, empowering staff and clients, and by helping people to grow and fulfil their potential. In a service where ‘recovery’ is the product (or ‘profit’) it is vital that everybody’s contribution is acknowledged and people are fairly rewarded. Inevitably our system rewards some more than others and the recent introduction of ‘Agenda for Change’, the new NHS pay structure, has arguably made this harder. Never the less, I strongly agree with the need for personal restraint (DePree, 2002) in a system with such a wide range of pay scales. There is nothing more offensive than a highly paid NHS manager in an expensive sports car, no matter how severe their mid-life crisis. I do also recognise the reasonable criticisms of servant-leadership when presented as a purely transformational approach. Traditional transactional activities such as resource management, policy and proceedure are also necessary in a twenty-first century health service and some control remains necessary if outcomes are to be realised efficiently. Balancing these requirements with empowering models is the key, in my view, to enabling innovation and creativity whilst avoiding mediocrity and waste. Finally, as a big, hairy bossy-boots, I would need to declare some sympathy for the trait theorists. I think that I do have some natural in-built leadership qualities, as well as plenty of testosterone, and I enjoy seratonin as much as the next man (or woman)! Learning Points Foremost among the learning points stemming from this assignment for me was the relevance and usefulness of this subject to my work and this has been explored in the previous section. Also, I was surprised at just how large in both breadth and depth this subject is. Theories on leadership can be traced as far back as the ancient Greeks and Romans, with a massive expansion of interest dating back to the nineteenth century, culminating in a veritable explosion from the middle of the twentieth century onwards. And leadership theories stem from a wide spectrum of fields including industrial, religious, military, financial, educational, political and organisational. I have learned that no one model fully explains everything or is pertinent to all situations, and that leadership models, like history, are open to interpretation and reflective of the dominant culture of a particular place or time. Theories seem to exist, like most things, on a continuum, with poles that represent unworkable extremes such as dictatorship and anarchy. In between lie a spectrum of models that will have different levels of utility according to the presenting circumstances. I have reflected that there are times when strong, authoritarian leadership is necessary (such as wartime or when trying to organise a multi-agency conference! ) and there are times when more subtle influence is required. Coming from a health service management perspective, this assignment has reinforced my view, as illustrated by Covey’s (1999) description of servant leadership, that clinicians in caring roles have to want to perform well and that managers can’t force workers to ‘care’ – any more than the north wind could force the man to remove his cloak in Aesop’s sixth century BC fable of the wind and the sun: Kindness, gentleness, and persuasion win where force fails. (Aesop, 6BC) I have also learned to recognise that different, coexisting parts of the same organisation can be working to different leadership models simultaneously. For example, in our organisation, the IT and catering departments might be run along the lines of scientific management, the finance department (and in particular the director of finance) employ authoritarian transactional control, whilst our clinicians require engaging and empowering approaches to optimise their creativity and output. The CEO, as ‘organisational architect’ needs considerable skill to hold all of this together and I have learned that complex organisations like ours can only function when discretionary leadership roles are promoted. When thinking about the different types of leadership required in the NHS, I was also led to consider the problems that occur when leadership style conflicts with leadership need and there are many examples of organisational problems stemming from this kind of dichotomy. Similarly, problems occur when the ‘espoused’ (Argyris, 1974) theory of leadership differs from the theory in action. The starkest example of this, perhaps, would be Adolph Hitler, who espoused to be the natural leader (‘Ubermensch’ – Nietzsche, 1883) of national socialists but was in fact a nasty dictator. Speaking of dictatorship, in studying for this assignment I found myself naturally drawn to models of leadership that reflect my own values and beliefs and that vindicate my own approach. At the same time I found it useful to see these ideas in their broader context and contrasted with alternatives. I have become increasingly aware of the social, political, philosophical and spiritual dimensions of leadership theory and was struck by the strong link between Christianity and servant-leadership, with many of its exponents being unashamed god-botherers with evangelical tendencies. This led me to reflect on the way leadership theories have been influenced by dominant cultural models over time, and how we have seen a transition from authoritarian ‘old testament’ models of leadership at the start of the industrial revolution, to the scientific and evolutionary models of the twentieth century and, finally, to models based on the modern Christian/Humanistic values of empowerment. In the NHS we have witnessed a shift from leadership models based on power and status (Consultants, Medical Superintendents etc. to models based on emulating the business models and management control of business/industry, to the discretionary models of leadership that are increasingly found in large, complex, network-based NHS organisations. It remains to be seen whether the NHS will continue this evolutionary journey or, as some fear, pendulum back to models based on the divine power and status of medical leads and general managers. Conclusion This essay asked us to consider leadership requirements for the twenty-first century and I would be inclined to agree with Greenleaf’s (1970) axiomatic proposition that the system needed to deliver the necessary change would be the one that works best. For Greenleaf that was servant-leadership. Importantly Greenleaf identifies the requirement for leadership to deliver the ‘necessary change’, and this examination of leadership theories has shown me how the management of change is central to the purpose of leadership and how successfully managing change is a defining characteristic of leadership (Pedler et al, 2004). Pedler describes this in a way that both resonates with me and promotes simultaneously the ideas of discretionary leadership, servant leadership and transactional progress: Major change usually involves large numbers of people, and there are usually many agendas present concerning what the change should be, what it is for and how it is achieved. Listening to and balancing these views and concerns, whilst continuing to move forward is one of the hallmarks of good leadership. (Pedler et al, 2004) With regard to whether a different kind of leadership is required for the twenty-first century, I think that it can be concluded that different scenarios demand different models of leadership. Kakabadse (1999) argues that discretionary leadership will naturally emerge in response to the pace and pressure of organisational change in the twenty-first century. For me, the model of leadership needed in the twenty-first century, will be the one that best reflects the cultural norms and values of the century. For modern NHS organisations, I am inclined to agree with the discretionary leadership theorists that flexible, interdependent, multi-layered leadership based on shared values, relationships, communication and the flow of ideas is required. Gooding supports the view that the requirements of the twenty-first century will undoubtedly be different to those of the preceding centuries: The manager will become much more of a coach, positioned alongside rather than above his team, working with them, acknowledging their concerns, ideas and aspirations. (Gooding, 2005). According to Gooding, the ‘command and control’ culture is dying and the personality profile of successful managers will change, emphasising empathy and sensitivity. However, despite many examples of successful servant-leaders, I remain to be convinced that these models will soon be adopted in the ‘for-profit’ sector, where macho, transactional behaviour is still valued and rewarded: ‘You’re fired! ’ (Alan Sugar, 2008) References Aesop, (6BC). A Selection Of Aesop’s Fables From A New Translation For Modern Readers (1953), Wolverhampton College of Art Argyris, C and Schon D (1974). Theory in Practice, Jossey Bass Bate, P, Robert, G & Bevan, H (2004). The next phase of healthcare improvement: what can we learn from social movements? Quality and Safety in Health Care,13, p62 Bevan, A (1952). In Place of Fear, New York: Simon and Schuster Burke, E (1775). Speech on Conciliation with America, March 22, 1775, Department of Alfa-informatica, University of Groningen Burke, E (1790). Reflections on the Revolution in France and on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London Relative to that Event in a Letter Intended to be Sent to a Gentleman in Paris, Pall Mall (London): Dodsley Burns, JM (1978). Leadership, New York: Harper Row Covey, S R (1999). Servant leadership and Community Leadership in the Twenty-first Century in Spears LC and Lawrence M (2002) Focus on Leadership: Servant-Leadership for the 21st Century, Wiley Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin Of Species, London: John Murray DePree, M (1990). Leadership is an Art, Dell Depree, M (2002). Servant Leadership: Three Things Necessary in Spears LC and Lawrence M (2002) Focus on Leadership: Servant-Leadership for the 21st Century, Wiley Fairholm, GW (1991). Values Leadership: Towards a NewPhilosophy of Leadership, London: Praeger Finklestein, S and Hambrick, DC (1996). Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and their Effects on Organisations. New York: West Publishing Agency Freud, S (1922). Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. London: International Psychological Press Gooding, V (2005). What will Tomorrow’s Organisation Look Like? In Leadership and Management in the 21st Century: Business Challenges of the Future (ed. ) Cooper, CL (2005). Oxford University Press Greenleaf, RK (1970). The Servant as Leader. In (eds. ) Zimmerli, WC, Richter, K and Holzinger, M (2007. ) Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance, Berlin: Springer Hesse, H (1932). Journey to the East (Die Morganlandfahrt), Samuel Fisher House, RJ (1977). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. In Leadership: The Cutting Edge, (eds. ) JG Hunt and LL Larson. Carbondale. IL: Southern Illinois University Press Hunt, JG et al. (1981). A Multiple Influence Model of Leadership. Report for the US Army Research Institute. Carbondale. IL: Southern Illinois University Press Hyun-kyung, K (2008) Will Servant Leadership Work in Next Government? In Korean Times, 30/01/08 Kakabadse, A & Kakabadse, N (1999). Essence of Leadership. London: International Thompson Kakabadse, A (2000). From Individual to Team to Cadre: Tracking Leadership for the Third Millennium. Journal of Strategic Change, Vol. 9 pp. 5-16. Kakabadse, A (2005). Discretionary Leadership: From Control/Coordination to Value Co-Creation Through Polylogue. In Leadership and Management in the 21st Century: Business Challenges of the Future (ed. ) Cooper, CL (2005). Oxford University Press Kouzmin, A Kakabadse, A & Kakabadse, N (2007). Leadership and Ethics in a Managerialist Context. In Public Governance and Leadership: Political and Managerial Problems in Making Public Governance Changes the Driver for Re-Constituting Leadership (ed) Koch, R and Dixon, J. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitats-Verlag Marx, K (1959). Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, Moscow: Progress Publishers Myung-bak, L (2002). Having Hope Among Continued Frustration, Nicholson, N (2000). Managing the Human Animal. London: Texere Nietzsche, F (1883) Also Sprach Zarathustra, Cherrnitz: Ernst Schmeitzner Pedler, M Burgoyn, J and Boydell T (2004). A Manager’s Guide to Leadership. Glasgow: McGraw Hill Sugar, A (2008). The Apprentice, BBC TV Taylor, FW (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper Weber, M (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. Henderson, AM and Parsons, T, New York: Free Press

Absolutism And Democracy Essay

What form of government was most effective-democracy or absolutism- for the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe? During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there were two forms of government. The two forms of government were democracy and absolutism. Both of these forms of government were effective in their own ways. Absolutism though was the most effective during this time. Absolutism is when the ruler has unlimited power. Many rulers had a democracy government but absolutism was more effective because the rulers had all the power and it was hard to take advantage of them rather than a democracy where many rulers can get over thrown by the people of that country. Machiavelli, who wrote The Prince, felt that the best way to rule was to be feared. He wrote in his book The Prince, â€Å"Men have less hesitation in offending a man who is loved than one who is feared, for love is held by a bond of obligation which, as men are wicked, is broken whenever personal advantage suggests it.† What he means by this is that if you rule by fear people are less likely to defy you than if you rule w ith love. This would be extremely helpful when running a country. King James I also believed that absolutism was the way to rule. He thought that kings were like Gods therefore he believed in Divine Right. Divine Right is the belief that kings get their authority from God. â€Å"The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God’s lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God himself they are called gods†. What he means by this is that Kings have every right and power needed to rule. With Kings having every right to rule there would be no questions as to whether or not a King is fit to rule King Louis XIV believed in absolutism. He once stated â€Å"The head alone has the right to deliberate and decide, and the functions of all the other members consist only in carrying out the commands given to them. . . . The more you grant . . . (to the assembled people), the more it claims. . . . The interest of the state must come first.† King Louis XVI is saying that if a  country is ruled by a monarch it is more organized. He also says that people are greedy, so they are more interested in themselves and not the country. He says that Absolutism is the government that makes sure the country is taken care of. The interest of the state must come first, otherwise the entire country would collapse Even though absolutism was the most effective form of government during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries many philosophes believed in democracy. Democracy is when the people of the government have a say in what goes on in the government. One philosopher who believed in democracy was Voltaire. He believed that people’s freedoms are essential, especially the freedom of speech. He once wrote â€Å"I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. . . . The best government seems to be that in which all ranks of men are equally protected by laws. . . .† He is stating his belief in the right of free speech, and that democracy is best. While his beliefs are tempting to many people, if the government did as he believed, there would be nothing but chaos. At that point in time, the people’s minds were not as smart and reasonable. This type of government would end terribly. John Locke is another philosopher who believed in democracy. He wrote in Two Treatises on Government â€Å"Men being . . . by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be . . . subjected to the political power of another without his own consent. . . . To protect natural rights governments are established. . . . Since men hope to preserve their property by establishing a government, they will not want that government to destroy their objectives. When legislators try to destroy or take away the property of the people, or try to reduce them to slavery, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who can then refuse to obey laws.† If the governments did as Locke proposes there would be so many revolts about little thi ngs, that nothing would ever get done. Also when Locke states â€Å"no one can be subjected to the political power of another without his own consent† that is untrue. If the majority of a population votes for someone to be put into power, the smaller portion of the population that voted against that person will, in fact, become subjected to the political power of another without his own consent. Baron de Montesquieu wrote in The Spirit of Laws â€Å"Although the forms of state-monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy- were united in English government, the powers of government were separated from one another. There  can be no liberty where the executive, legislative, and judicial powers are united in one person or body of persons, because such concentration is bound to result in arbitrary despotism.† What Montesquieu is saying is that if there were separate powers, there would be liberty. That may be true, but with one absolute monarch the government would be more effective. Everything would get done faster. Both Absolute and Democratic forms of government were effective in their own ways, but Absolutism was the most effective during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe. Absolutism brought on faster solutions to problems. It also was in the best interest of the whole country, and kept the needs of the state first. It kept everything in order, and raised little questions from the people. Overall absolutism was the most suitable government for Europe at this time.