Contrast Between Leadership And Management Management Essay

Contrast Between Leadership And Management Management Essay The paper is about todays leadership and discuss about the impact on leadership from diverse culture. Two leadership models are introduced with application of one famous leader. Mullins (2007) defined leadership as a relationship, which a person influences others on their behaviors. It is always associated with group activities. Many people may be confused with leadership and management. Leadership plays one function of management (Anon., 1997). Management has four major functions, planning, organizing, leading, and controlling (Kinicki Williams, 2006). Leadership has the function of leading. Leaders have followers by influence them, while managers get subordinates and rule them. Vick (2012) distinguished them by regarding managers as the liaisons between individual success and organizations success, and regarding leaders as instigators. Although its very ideal to play a role with the combination of leader and manager, a manager is not necessary to be a leader, vice versa. 1.3 The way leaders influence others One major reason is leaders can influence others by their power. Bartol and Martin (1991) stated that Power is the capacity to affect the behavior of others. It includes legitimate power, reward power, coercive power, expert power, information power, and referent power. By using different type of power, the followers may have different reaction. Hellriegel, Jackson and Slocum (2002) classified the reactions into three types: commitment, compliance, and resistance. Most Likely Response from Followers Type of power Used by Leader Expert Referent Reward Legitimate Coercive Commitment Compliance Resistance 1.4 Leadership with cultural diversity Nowadays, with the development of globalization, leaders are more likely to face followers with different cultures than before. In organizations, whether companies have international activities, they may have a workforce with diverse culture (Den Hartog Dickson, n.d.). 2 A Leader for Example Todays would is heavily affected by the developed technology. PC has become an indispensable part in the life. And the person who made PC universal is the co-found and chairman of Microsoft, Bill Gates. He also founded Bill Melinda Gates Foundation with his wife, Melinda Gates (Bellis, n.d.). Bill Gates is an entrepreneur and a philanthropist as well. He had been the wealthiest man in the world for a long period. Bill Gates has many common traits which also appear in many other successful leaders. The following ones are some of them: Passion on career: Since first exposure to computers in 1968, Bill Gates was inspired passion on computers. He took part in many computer related activities, such as being hired by CCC to find bugs. He even dropped out of Harvard and set up Microsoft to devote into developing software (EVAN CARMICHAEL, n.d.). Spirit of innovation: Bill Gates has the spirit of innovation. Windows 1.0, an operation system which was far cry from existing ones at that time, is a brainchild of Bill Gates (Microsoft, n.d.). Ambition: 3 Leadership Model Leadership models are established for people to follow to 3.1 Transformational Model DuBrin (2010) stated that Transformational leadership focuses on what the leader accomplishes yet still pays attention to the leaders personal characteristics and his or her relationship with group members. Transformational leadership was firstly proposed by James MacGregor Burns in 1978. She conceptualized leadership as either transactional or transformational (Bass Riggio, 2006). The latest transformational model includes four elements, idealised influence (II), inspirational motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS) and individualized consideration (IC), which are also known as 4Is. The variables of transformational leadership (Bass Riggio, 2006) Idealized influence: Idealized influence refers to the leaders generating trust, respect and loyalty from followers by their high level of ethical and moral behaviors. Followers approve the leaders and intend to imitate them. Idealized influence has two aspects, the leaders behaviors and followers perception. Inspirational motivation: Transformational leaders have strong vision for the future. They stimulate followers by giving challenge and meaning to followers work. Leaders make followers involve in imaging fascinating future and drive up followers enthusiasm and optimism. Intellectual stimulation: Transformational leaders encourage followers to be innovative and creative. Individuals mistakes are not to be criticized publicly. New ideas and approaches from followers are encouraged. Individualized consideration: Transformational leaders act as a coach or mentor and lay emphasis on individual followers needs for achievement and development. Different needs and wants of individual are recognized. Leaders prefer a two-way communication with followers and personalized interaction. The full range of leadership model The full range of leadership model is a combination of both transactional and transformational leadership. The components of transactional leadership include contingent reward (CR), management-by-exception (MBE), and laissez-faire leadership (LF). Fig.3.1 The full range of leadershipThe components are evaluated by two dimensions, activeness and effectiveness. Bass and Riggio (2006) stated that optimal leaders display LF leadership most infrequently, and display MBE and CR higher frequently. They choose transformational leadership, 4Is, most frequently. In contrast, poor leaders preform oppositely. Bill gates, a transformational leader Bill gates started Microsoft with a strong vision, a computer on every desk and Microsoft on every computer. He attributed the astounding success of Microsoft to the vision. (EVAN CARMICHAEL, n.d.). 3.2 Situational leadership model 4 Impact from cultural diversity Leaders use a combination of different leadership style. National cultural is one of the important factors which affect the decisions of choosing leadership style (Robbins and Decenzo). With the increasing globalization, the situation of cultural factor becomes more complex for the leaders. 5 Conclusion

Hopelessness in Albert Camus The Plague and Samuel Becketts Waiting for Godot :: comparison compare contrast essays

Hopelessness in Albert Camus' The Plague and Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot  Ã‚   Does Existentialism deny the existence of God? Can God possibly exist in a world full of madness and injustice? Albert Camus and Samuel Beckett address these questions in The Plague and Waiting for Godot. Though their thinking follows the ideals of existentialism, their conclusions are different. Camus did not believe in God, nor did he agree with the vast majority of the historical beliefs of the Christian religion. His stance on Christianity is summed up most simply by his remark that "in its essence, Christianity (and this is its paradoxical greatness) is a doctrine of injustice. It is founded on the sacrifice of the innocent and the acceptance of this sacrifice" (Bree 49). Camus felt that Jesus Christ was an innocent man who was unjustly killed. This does conflicts with all of Camus' values. However, Camus did not believe that Jesus was the son of God. Camus' inability to accept Christian theology is voiced in The Plague by Riex and juxtaposed against the beliefs preached by Father Paneloux (Rhein 42). Paneloux's attitude toward the plague contrasts sharply with Rieux's. In his first sermon, he preaches that the plague is divine in origin and punitive in its purpose. He attempts to put aside his desires for a rational explanation and simply accepts God's will. In this way he is not revolting and therefore falls victim to the plague. Father Paneloux's belief that there are no innocent victims is shaken as he watches a young boy die of the plague. Camus purposefully describes a long, painful death to achieve the greatest effect on Paneloux: "When the spasms had passed, utterly exhausted, tensing his thin legs and arms, on which, within forty-eight hours, the flesh had wasted to the bone, the child lay flat, in a grotesque parody of crucifixion" (215). Paneloux cannot deny that the child was an innocent victim and is forced to rethink his ideas. During his second sermon, a change is seen in Father Paneloux. He now uses the pronoun "we" instead of "you," and he has adopted a new policy in which he tells people to believe "all or nothing" (224). Father Paneloux, as a Christian, is faced with a decision: either he accepts that God is the ultimate ruler and brings goodness out of the evil that afflicts men, or he sides with Rieux and denies God.

The Lost Tribes of Israel Claims by Herbert Armstrong

The Lost Tribes of Israel Catholic. com Around 926 b. c. , the kingdom of Israel split in two. Up to that point, all twelve tribes of Israel (plus the priestly tribe of Levi) had been united under the monarchies of Saul, David, and Solomon. But when Solomon’s son Rehoboam ascended to the throne, the ten Northern tribes rebelled and seceded from the union. This left only two tribes—Judah and Benjamin (plus much of Levi)—under the control of the king in Jerusalem. From that time on, the tribes were divided into two nations, which came to be called the House of Israel (the Northern ten tribes) and the House of Judah (the Southern two tribes).This situation continued until around 723 B. C. , when the Assyrians conquered the Northern kingdom. To keep conquered nations in subjection, it was Assyrian policy to break them up by deporting their native populations to other areas and resettling the land with newcomers. When the House of Israel was conquered, most people bel onging to the ten Northern tribes were deported and settled elsewhere in the Assyrian kingdom, including places near Nineveh, Haran, and on what is now the Iran-Iraq border.They were replaced by settlers from locations in or near Babylon and Syria. These settlers intermarried, together with the remaining Israelites, and became the Samaritans mentioned in the New Testament (a few hundred of whom still survive today). The Israelites who had been deported also intermarried with the peoples of the places where they had been resettled. They eventually lost their distinct identity, disappeared, and their culture was lost to history. Some refer to them as â€Å"the lost tribes of Israel. â€Å"A movement called â€Å"British Israelism† claims to have found the ten â€Å"lost tribes,† however, and in some very unlikely places. For many years, one of the leaders in the British Israelism movement was Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the self-proclaimed â€Å"Worldwide Church of God. † Especially for Americans, Armstrong was just about the only person they ever heard advocating British Israelism. With his own paid television program, Armstrong regularly advertised his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy, which advocated the view. British Israelism was not Armstrong’s only eccentric view.Among other things, he believed in Saturday rather than Sunday worship and, most seriously, he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and claimed that individual humans could be added to the Godhead. After Armstrong’s death, the Worldwide Church of God did a serious review of the doctrines it had taught up to that point and moved to a more biblically and theologically orthodox position. Today, the organization is basically another Evangelical Protestant church (they have even been admitted to the National Association of Evangelicals), though with a few distinctive practices.Many of their congregations still worship on Saturdays, for example, b ut they no longer regard keeping the Jewish Sabbath and feasts as points of doctrine. They have embraced the doctrine of the Trinity, denied that created beings can become part of the Godhead, and acknowledged that other churches contain true Christians. They have also rejected the distinctive idea behind British Israelism—the claim that the lost tribes of Israel are to be specially identified with the Anglo-Saxons.Unfortunately, there are still advocates of British Israelism out there (including some groups that split off from the Worldwide Church of God when it underwent its doctrinal renewal), and, though the book is out of print, Herbert W. Armstrong’s The United States and Britain in Prophecy continues to circulate. The United States and Britain in Prophecy teaches the notion that the Lost Tribes of Israel are really the descendants of Anglo-Saxons, which is to say the British and Americans of British extraction. This exotic doctrine had been around for decades be fore Herbert W.Armstrong founded his church in 1933, and it appeals, naturally enough, to those of British heritage. After all, who wouldn’t want to be a member of the â€Å"chosen race† (assuming there is one)? And according to Armstrong, that’s precisely what the Anglo-Saxons are—God’s chosen race, where can be found the direct descendants of King David and, even today, the true â€Å"heirs† to King David’s throne. The United States and Britain in Prophecy opens with this epigraph: â€Å"The prophecies of the Bible have been grievously misunderstood. And no wonder!For the vital key, needed to unlock prophetic doors to understanding, had become lost. That key is a definite knowledge of the true identity of the American and British peoples in biblical prophecy. † Only the first sentence of this epigraph is strictly correct, and a good share of the â€Å"grievous misunderstanding† is by people who put faith in the writing s of Herbert W. Armstrong. The Argument Begins â€Å"We know Bible prophecies definitely refer to Russia, Italy, Ethiopia, Libya, and Egypt of today. Could they then ignore modern nations like Britain and America?Is it reasonable? † This is how the argument begins, and notice what kind of argument it is. If these â€Å"lesser† countries are mentioned in Scripture, would it be fair for God to ignore us, important as we are? (We won’t examine here the highly dubious premise that Russia is mentioned in Scripture. ) You might call this an â€Å"appeal to pride. † Never fear, says Armstrong. â€Å"The fact is, [the British and Americans] are mentioned more often than any other race [sic]. Yet their prophetic identity has remained hidden to the many. Why is that? you ask. Because the Bible doesn’t refer to them by their modern names, but by an ancient name. And what is that name? None other than Israel. â€Å"Hold it! † you say. The people who ca me from Israel are Jews. Britons and Americans, for the most part, aren’t Jewish. How can one claim otherwise? Easily. Armstrong assures us that, â€Å"The house of Israel is not Jewish! Those who constitute it are not Jews, and never were! That fact we shall now see conclusively, beyond refute. † Actually, there is something of a point here.The term â€Å"Jew† originated as a way of referring to the people of the southern kingdom of Judah, whether their own tribe was Judah, Benjamin, or Levi. The term appears late in Israel’s history—after the division into northern and southern kingdoms—and it can be fairly claimed that the term does not apply to the members of the ten northern tribes, who are properly known as â€Å"Israelites† since they belonged to the House of Israel rather than the House of Judah. Armstrong asserted: â€Å"Certainly this proves that the Jews are a different nation altogether from the House of Israel,† cl aims Armstrong. The Jews of today are Judah! They call their nation ‘Israel’ today because they, too, descend from the patriarch Israel or Jacob. But remember that the ‘House of Israel’—the ten tribes that separated from Judah—does not mean Jew! Whoever the lost ten tribes of Israel are today, they are not Jews! † â€Å"By the year 721 B. C. , the House of Israel was conquered and its people were soon driven out of their own land—out of their homes and cities—and carried captives to Assyria, near the southern shores of the Caspian Sea! † So it was in 721 B.C. that the Lost Tribes got â€Å"lost. † The Year Nothing Happened Had the tribes remained faithful to God, all would have been well, Armstrong explains. â€Å"But, if they refused and rebelled, they were to be punished seven times—a duration of 2,520 years—in slavery, servitude, and want. † They did rebel, and Armstrong theorizes that their punishment extended from 721 B. C. to A. D. 1800. And what remarkable thing happened in 1800? Well, if we don’t count the election of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency of the United States, not a whole lot.In fact, 1800 was a pretty dull year for history. But Armstrong disagrees, saying that from that date, Britain and America became world powers; the former (at that time) politically, and the latter economically (and later, also politically). According to Armstrong’s scheme, the figure of â€Å"2,520 years of punishment† is arrived at by multiplying the â€Å"seven years of punishment† by 360—the number of days in the year as it was reckoned by the ancients—on the principle that each â€Å"day† of punishment really stood for a whole year of punishment.If you think this is convoluted reasoning, just wait until you read the remainder of the argument in The United States and Britain in Prophecy. It’s enough to note here th at Armstrong determines from Scripture that the Lost Tribes ended up on islands in the sea, and these islands are northwest of Palestine. We’re told, for example, that the forty-ninth chapter of Isaiah begins with, â€Å"Listen, O isles, unto me. † Do you see how this suggests the British Isles? Armstrong says, â€Å"Take a map of Europe.Lay a line due northwest of Jerusalem across the continent of Europe, until you come to the sea, and then to the islands in the sea! This line takes you direct to the British Isles! † The skeptic might note that the line first comes to the Aegean islands, which are also in the sea—the Mediterranean Sea—but this would mean the Greeks are the Lost Tribes, therefore, the theory would not play into the desires of some British or Americans to identify themselves with the lost tribes. Linguistic Legerdemain You want more proof? Armstrong has it. The House of Israel,† he explains, â€Å"is the ‘covenant peopl e. ’ The Hebrew word for ‘covenant’ is brit [b’rith]. And the word for ‘covenant man,’ or ‘covenant people,’ would therefore sound, in English word order, Brit-ish (the word ish means ‘man’ in Hebrew, and it is also an English suffix on nouns and adjectives). And so, is it mere coincidence that the true covenant people today are called the ‘British’? And they reside in the ‘British Isles’! † This reasoning may impress some, but no linguist would take this seriously.The word â€Å"British† is not derived from Hebrew but from the Celtic word Brettas. It’s significant that the Celtic Brettas referred to the Britons, who were inhabitants of England before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons that Armstrong claims were Israelites. One possible reason for Armstrong’s linguistic confusions may be that in Webster’s Diction-ary (for example, in the 3,200-page unabridged ed ition published in 1932—an edition Armstrong may have had access to) the entry for b’rith (Hebrew: covenant) appears sandwiched between the entries for â€Å"Britannic† and â€Å"Briticism. Perhaps he simply didn’t read carefully enough and assumed, wrongly, that b’rith must somehow be etymologically connected with the other the words before and after pertaining to things British. Neither does the common English suffix -ish derive from the Hebrew word for man. Instead, it derives from the Greek diminutive suffix -iskos It was bad enough to suggest that the word â€Å"British† is Hebrew, but he also made another claim: If you take the name â€Å"Isaac,† you see it’s easy for someone to drop the â€Å"I† when speaking quickly and to end up with â€Å"Saac† as the name of the patriarch.He had descendants, of course, and these may be called â€Å"Saac’s sons,† from which we get the word â€Å"Saxons. à ¢â‚¬  â€Å"Is it only coincidence,† asks Armstrong, â€Å"that ‘Saxons’ sounds the same as ‘Saac’s sons’—sons of Isaac? † This doesn’t even qualify as a coincidence, since Armstrong had to make up the nickname of â€Å"Saac† in order for the â€Å"coincidence† to exist. In reality, the term â€Å"Saxon† is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word â€Å"seax,† which means knife or dagger, not the Hebrew word â€Å"Isaac† (Yitskhaq), which means â€Å"laughter† (cf.Gen. 17:15–19, 18:9–15). Another Remarkable Coincidence? Armstrong found other coincidences. When the Lost Tribes were scattered, he says, they â€Å"brought with them certain remarkable things, including a harp and a wonderful stone called lia-fail, or stone of destiny. A peculiar coincidence is that Hebrew reads from right to left, while English reads from left to right. Read this name either way—and it still is lia-fail. Another strange coincidence—or is it just coincidence? is that many kings in the history of Ireland, Scotland, and England have been coronated sitting over a remarkable stone—including the present queen [sic]. The stone rests today in Westminster Abbey in London, and the coronation chair is built over and around it. A sign once beside it labeled it ‘Jacob’s pillar-stone. ’† Here Armstrong’s argument becomes even weaker. After all, one could note that Hebrew and English are not the only languages which, when contrasted, are read in different directions. For example, Arabic is read right to left, while Gaelic is read left to right.What does that prove? Nothing! Just as Armstrong’s muddled reasoning proves nothing at all about a connection between Hebrew and English. If it did, one could just as easily â€Å"prove† that the Lost Tribes were also responsible for bringing the Blarney Stone with them. And that ’s just plain blarney. Armstrongism’s Appeal What makes Armstrong’s notion so attractive to some folks? First, it appeals to their nationalistic vanity: â€Å"I’m of English descent, and now I see that I’m right in the thick of things, biblically speaking.Having English blood in my veins makes me special. It puts me above the rest of the crowd. † It also perpetuates ethnic prejudice: â€Å"Thank God I’m not Italian! I never liked Italians anyway, and now I see they aren’t descended from the Lost Tribes and so are only secondary players in the divine drama—something I always suspected. † At first glance, Armstrong’s argument seems to be based on a sophisticated understanding of Scripture: â€Å"Armstrong provides lots of citations, and I can’t find fault with his argument. It’s so convoluted and technical it

Literature Review of Cambridge by Caryl Phillips - 1667 Words

For my Internal Assessment I have chosen to do a review of Caryl Phillips’ post-colonial work of fiction, â€Å"Cambridge†. This novel published in the year 1991, explores the interlocking of a variety of forms of marginalization, displacement and dispossession that emerge from the experience of cross-cultural encounters. It persistently raises questions of home, identity and belonging. Philips’ novel is set in an unnamed small Caribbean island during a transitional period, sometime between the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 and the emancipation of slaves in 1834. Phillips raises the consciousness of the readers by highlighting the brutality and horrors of slavery through perfected use of narrative techniques such as imagery, irony,†¦show more content†¦Brown. Furthermore, Emily’s marginality in planter society is reinforced as much by her relative innocence as newcomer as by her own vague and unspecified liberal beliefs. In the early days, she sees herself as ‘set apart† from planter society; she sides with the abolitionist campaigns and is disapproving of her father’s cavalier ignorance of the â€Å"pains and pleasures†¦.endured by those whose labour enables him to indulge himself in the heavy-pocketed manner to which he has become accustomed†. She sees herself as on a moral crusade of sorts and hopes to convert her father to the abolitionist cause through her first-hand knowledge and account of the â€Å"inquiry of slavery.† Yet her condemnation of her compatriots’ abstract support for the abolitionists and convert real support of â€Å"old prejudices,† will increasingly apply to her. Emily’s account of her initial encounters with â€Å"negroes† on the island is testament to the strength and depth of European racial prejudices. She finds it difficult to disguise her revulsion at the appearance, dress, manners and language of the black peoples of the island. She repeatedly associates them with the animal kingdom, mistaking slave children for monkeys, describing slave homes as â€Å"lairs and nests† and the noises of the slave village as a distant â€Å"braying.† Emily objects to her black slave