Communication in Security Settings Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Communication in Security Settings Paper - Essay Example If they will use negative attitude instead of positive then it can create a trouble for them. Effective communication is the combined harmony of verbal and nonverbal behavior. NONVERBAL behavior can be explained as anything other than words themselves that communicates or affects (positively or negatively) the message "contained" in the words. Nonverbal communication contains body motion, facial expressions and eye movement. FACIAL EXPRESSION: While listening to a person you should ahead to indicate that you understand and is in agreement with the speaker. You glance away or yawn to signify that you are uninterested or would like for the speaker to discontinue talking. EYE MOVEMENT: Direct eye contact is necessary in the public to show a self-confident, truthful character. Most people find it hard to look at someone in the eyes when they are conversing with them. Straight eye contact can be anxiety-provoking and on a circumstance can reason some persons to lose their train of thinking. The answer is to focus your eyes someplace else on the face. For example, you can keep your eyes stuck to the persons nose, mouth, or ear. As long as your focus is within eight inches of the nose, the other individual will not be able to tell that you are not watching him or her directly in the eyes. When you are communicating with your sender or receiver you should be confident that there is no contest for your attention like thrilling things going on nearby or other people chatting (cell phones, IMs, chat rooms, email, etc.) Occasionally there is case that its hard to communicate simply because you cannot send or receive the message. Earsplitting noises can block communication, and so can stuff like lost phone signals and computers not being capable to interface. Sometimes the sender uses vocabulary that the receiver does not recognize,. Try to use

Middle east issue Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Middle east issue - Essay Example er and later imperial dominions by Britain, USA, France, and former Soviet Union took roots during European colonial times even before the rise of Ottoman Empire when colonizers aimed both to impair the latter and gain possession of the lands under successful conquest (Shah). Moreover, the Westerners around this period were very critical at propagating not only their political but also religious influence, seizing every opportunity to banish Islam so that Middle Eastern subjects on conversion to Christianity would eventually accept fate of becoming colonial inhabitants. With the turn of history, the West to some extent was able to accomplish pursuit of its objectives and even made allies through certain Arab leaders whose notorious authorities came rather more dictatorial by nature. As they combined forces to settle disputes on whose side should yield or acquire the most reserves of oil from the rich targets, the common people among Arab nations had perceived other unpleasant attributes underlying the general motive. To them, based on austere encounters, the West had suppressed the concerns of multitude in Middle East so that any favor sought was achieved on their end at the expense of freedom, given over to corrupt leadership and manipulated regime. Furthermore, people of Middle East became consumed with anguish towards cultural stereotyping, racism, and especially the fact that their high respect for early civilizations, as in Mesopotamia, reared for them an unbreakable character as a whole in the light of religion, established principles, and or iginal ideologies which could also determine the measure of their commitment and regard for the roots of citizenship (Shah). Fighting more than the right to religious and philosophical preferences, some anti-West groups were compelled to employ armed terrorism, extremism, and Islamic militancies that secretly spread, operated under conspiracy to attack US and other connected oppositions with the most intelligently and

RESEARCH PAPER Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

RESEARCH PAPER - Essay Example One of the authors who wrote on the mistakes that happened in the war is Bill Fawcett. In his book, How to Lose WWII: Bad Mistakes of the Good War, he highlighted facts and in a very interesting way. According to Fawcett, the outbreak of war was ignited by Germany’s invasion of Poland in September 1939 which could have been avoided if not for poor judgement (8). The Treaty of Versailles which was imposed on Germany by Orlando of Italy, Georges Clemenceau of France, Lloyd George of England and Woodrow Wilson of the US discussed the punishment they had to give Germany for starting World War I. Woodrow Wilson formulated a 14-point-plan which he believed would bring peace to Europe but Clemenceaue wanted revenge on Germany. Georges agreed with Wilson but the public sided with France. The Germans were expecting a treaty based on Wilson’s 14 points but ended being disappointed. Instead, they had no choice but to take the very harsh agreement. They had to accept the blame for starting World War I, were forced to pay ?6.6 billion for war damages and were only allowed to have a small army. Moreover, Rhineland would be de-militarized. Some of Germany’s territories were given to other countries and union with Austria was also forbidden. Imposing a cold-hearted punishment like this to a poor and starving war struck country made many very unhappy. Germany looked for a saviour and found one, Adolf Hitler. He promised to tear down the treaty. As soon as he was elected Chancellor in January 1933, he wasted no time in building his army in secret. This was no secret for the French and Britain. They did not pay much attention thinking that the actions of Hitler would prevent the expansion of Communism to the West. They were wrong. By 1936, Germany had an army but it was not that strong. In the dawn of March 7, 1936, Hitler ordered his troops to enter Rhineland. At this point, thousands of France soldiers were also at the Franco-German border, yet they did not do anything, a great mistake. One of Hitler’s general, Heinz Guderian, stated that if the French had intervened in Rhineland in 1936, they could have defeated Hitler there and then. Later, it was also revealed that Hitler privately admitted: â€Å"The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance† (Bullock 135). If only the French or Britain made an action and put aside their fear, World War II could have been avoided at that point. In 1936, Italy and Japan allied with Germany. After these alliances Hitler started taking back German lands. They started with Austria in 1938, which was a direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler promised that Anschluss, union with Germany, would be the end of his expansion and he did not want to risk war. Six months later, Hitler invaded Sudetenland and eventually the whole of Czechoslovakia and yet again no one dared to stop Germany. The British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, thought that pressing military pressure from France and Britain would scare Germany from invading Poland. Chamberlain was wrong. In September 1, 1939, Germany attacked and occupied Poland, World War II officially started. Hitler also made one crucial mistake in 1941 when he declared war on Russia while

International Hotel DEvelopment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

International Hotel DEvelopment - Essay Example Hotels are one of the most profitable enterprises of this industry, particularly luxury hotels. Unlike upscale and upper upscale hotels, although luxury hotels offer many of the same features and give relatively the same living experience, it is their exclusive nature that sets them apart from other such hotels (Barsky, 2001). With only a few hotels per country classified in the highest tier of luxury hotels, they make the base of the hospitality industry’s strength. The Marriott Hotel in London is one such hotel. To understand what terms are these hotels classified into, the very specific categories that the hospitality industry puts them in it is important that one thoroughly analyzes and understands the hotels that make up each level and standard. This means to gauge the full effect and scope of a particular hotel, in this case the Marriott Hotel in London. This can be done best through either the SWOT analysis, defined by Albert Humphrey, which focuses on the strengths, we aknesses, opportunities and threats of an environment or the PESTLE analysis, which means analyzing the political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental factors of a hotel. All will be used in reference to the internal or external environment of the hotel, respectively. Hotels are generally judged and analyzed based on two factors – that is, their internal and external environment (Jones and Lockwood, 2004). The internal environment of a hotel refers to all factors and features that remain exclusively confined to that establishment itself. For example, all factors such as the business revenue of the hotel, the physical features of the hotel, the staff and other positions of the hotel, all contribute towards the internal environment of the hotel. As an extension of this, it can be said that any factors contributing towards and influencing the internal environment and state of a hotel can also be considered part of the environment itself (Huo, 1995). The fact ors that decide what an internal environment is based upon are factors such as what a company wishes to provide its customers with, and how its strengths can cater to those requirements. Other factors can be the means with which to provide their services and the services it wishes to furnish those requirements. In summary, the strengths, aims, resources and requirements of an industry all contribute towards constructing its internal environment and the manifestation of these components is what provides the physical representation of this internal environment (Raghubalan and Balan, 2007). On the other hand, the external environment of a hotel refers to all factors and influences that come from outside the enterprise itself. This means, all factors other than the business’s own desires, aims, means etc are considered external environmental factors. The external environment factor can influence the internal environment of a hotel or enterprise, but it is not only confined to suc h an enterprise. It can have effects of its own independence, other than in relation to being an influencing factor. Government policies, economic conditions, technological advances are all factors that comprise the external environment, but the biggest most important factor of the external envi

The Pros of Therapeutic Cloning Essay Example for Free

The Pros of Therapeutic Cloning Essay Are you for or against human cloning? Before you answer this pertinent question, picture this. A loved one who is very dear to you is diagnosed with a serious disease such as muscular dystrophy, Parkinson’s disease, or even diabetes. If they could be treated, cured or have their life saved by stem cells or the results of cloning research, would that change your answer? Cloning can be defined as creating â€Å"an identical copy of a plant or animal from the genetic material of a single organism† (Cloning). There are two main types of human cloning, reproductive and therapeutic. Reproductive human cloning would essentially produce entire, living human beings, whereas therapeutic cloning would only produce parts or pieces such as tissue samples or organs needed for transplantation. The major debate over cloning is an ethical one. Would a clone have the same rights as the original? Would cloning result in a new form of slavery? Personally, I am not sure what the answers to these questions are. But regardless, therapeutic cloning should be allowed because humans are not being created, only the components needed to heal ailing patients. One major issue in regards to the cloning debate is the conjoining of the two separate types of cloning. The public sees cloning as the creation of a belated twin, which actually only describes reproductive cloning. When most people think about cloning they picture a mad scientist creating faux people in some dank, secret laboratory. In reality, this is about as far from the truth as one can get. Medical science is very far from creating actual people. However, we are much closer to discovering the necessary technology for producing cells and tissue samples essential for the treating, and possibly curing, of many debilitating diseases. Stem cell research is a major part of indispensable advances in therapeutic cloning. â€Å"Stem cells are useful because of their ability to become other cell types†¦Embryonic stem (ES) cells, however, have a much greater developmental potential [than Adult stem cells] and can be coaxed to give rise to nearly every cell type† (Davies, Fairchild, and Silk). Stem cells can be used to start established cell lines, from which multiple different cell types can be grown. This technology could be utilized majorly for replacement tissue growth, which is crucial to the treatment of diseases such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is more commonly referred to as Lou Gehrig’s disease. Therapeutic cloning is not nearly as complicated as some people make it out to be. According to Kevin Bonsor and Cristen Conger on the How Stuff Works website, which is a Discovery Channel company, therapeutic cloning involves a serious of steps. DNA is extracted from a sick person. The DNA is then inserted into an enucleated donor egg [an egg with the nucleus removed]. The egg then divides like a typical fertilized egg and forms an embryo. Stem cells are removed from the embryo. Any kind of tissue or organ can be grown from these stem cells to treat various ailments and diseases. Using this process, healthy organs can be grown to replace damaged ones, or new skin can be produced to graft onto a burn victim. Furthermore, neurons can be grown to help treat patients with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, or other neurological ailments. Therapeutic cloning is referred to in the field as nuclear transportation or, more specifically, somatic cell nuclear transfer. According to an article written by Chan et al. in 2008, scientists conducted a study to learn whether or not they could treat Parkinson’s in mice and it began with the â€Å"derivation of 187 ntES [(nuclear transfer Embryonic Stem)] cell lines from twenty four parkinsonian mice. † Based on the information found in this study it is reasonable to say that, using therapeutic cloning, we may be able to treat Parkinson’s disease in mice (Chan et al. ). Taking that into account, it is hardly a far stretch until medical experts are capable of treating human sufferers of Parkinson’s. Furthermore, this study alone should be proof enough that research into therapeutic cloning is not only ethical, but necessary. Gregg Wasson was a distinguished law practitioner, and his fiancee, Ann Campbell, an author of children’s books. That is, until they were both diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease and their careers were ended by their impending dementia. Somehow, with help from the twenty five odd medications he take every day, Gregg managed to testify on behalf of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR) in front of the U. S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. With medicine where it is right now, this man is required to spend around $11,000 every year on his medication, and continue to medicate every three hours. Furthermore, â€Å"Parkinson’s medications become less effective over time†, so eventually his medications will no longer accomplish their job and he will slowly die (Therapeutic). If the government were to put a ban on therapeutic cloning, this would be the life that millions of Americans would be condemned to. However, if research is allowed to continue, we could someday be able to help these people, or even cure them. In the words of Gerald Ford, the thirty-eighth president of the United States of America, reproductive cloning would be â€Å"a perversion of science†. On the other hand, however, he argues that therapeutic cloning is anything but. In 2002, around the time of Ford’s eighty-ninth birthday, a bill was put before Congress that would ban not only reproductive cloning, but therapeutic as well. The late President Ford said that therapeutic cloning is â€Å"a very different branch of science that holds limitless potential to improve or extend life for 130 million Americans now suffering from chronic or debilitating conditions. He felt that all of these people deserved the best possible care that science and medicine could possibly produce, and banning therapeutic cloning would hinder advancement toward this goal significantly (Ford). The absolute epitome of the opposition to cloning is that people should not have the power to create people. This resistance does not apply here since I am only in favor of therapeutic cloning. Some may say that growing human tissue is equally as immoral as creating entire humans, to which I reply, is taking a biopsy equally as immoral as committing murder? Others may say that cloning is a boldfaced violation of the Nuremburg code. I feel that this does not even remotely apply, since the code says, in layman’s terms, that it is wrong to initiate experimentation on a human subject when it is known that the outcome may be serious pain, injury, or death. â€Å"People have been cloning plants for thousands of years†¦Many common fruits, vegetables, and ornamental plants are produced in this way from parent plant with especially desirable characteristics† (Cloning). Why, then, are people so opposed to it now? Fear of the unknown begets anger and opposition. Society has no idea what may come of cloning or stem cell research, so they wholeheartedly combat them. A number of people believe they do know will happen, and their ideas are often incredible stretches of the imagination. In my opinion, the worst possible outcome of therapeutic cloning would be to discover that some conditions and diseases are actually irreversible or incurable.

“Religion was more important than politics in the failure of King and Parliament to reach a settlement. 1646-1649”, Assess the validity of this statement Essay Example for Free

â€Å"Religion was more important than politics in the failure of King and Parliament to reach a settlement. 1646-1649†, Assess the validity of this statement Essay â€Å"Religion was more important than politics in the failure of King and Parliament to reach a settlement. 1646-1649†, Assess the validity of this statement. In January 1649, King Charles I was executed after being charged with high treason due to political and religious reasons, some of which contributed to his refusal in accepting the peace settlements given to him by Parliament. Charles’ refusal to compromise was supported by the division that had emerged within Parliament on how to fight the civil war between the Political Presbyterians and Political Independents. The main factors of the failure to reach a settlement were religion, politics, Charles’ intransigence, the New Model Army and the emergence of radical ideas; all of which eventually concluded to Charles’ execution. One of the main reasons why Charles and Parliament failed to reach a settlement was due to religion, especially with the division between the Political Presbyterians and Political Independents. The differences between the two were that Political Presbyterians favoured a negotiated peace with Charles and did not approve of the New Model Army, and were also drawn more closely to the Presbyterian Scots whereas the Political Independents were in favour of a more considerable measure of religious toleration and disliked the authoritarianism of Scottish Presbyterianism. This division throughout Parliament meant that they had failed to reach a settlement negotiating peace terms that was to be decided upon them. In July 1646, the Political Presbyterians had presented Charles with the Newcastle Propositions as their plan for settlement which consisted of severe terms such as Charles was to accept Presbyterianism for three years in England, Parliament was to have control of the militia for 20 years, and the Triennial Act was not to be abolished and to have regular parliaments. Charles rejected these terms of the Newcastle Propositions and instead offered counter-proposals suggesting that the Political Presbyterians would have a three year trial run and reduced parliamentary control over the militia to ten years. Smith1 says that â€Å"there was a good deal of influential opinion† when writing the Newcastle Propositions and was under the impression that Cromwell had expressed his input with these terms. As a result of this, it caused division in the army and more within Parliament as the Presbyterians responded by organising rallies in favour of peace on 26th July. The emergence of radical ideas links with religion as a reason for the failure to reach a settlement in the year 1646 to 1649 as the ideas of the Levellers and Diggers were starting to break through. The Levellers were based in London that needed to gain support by taking advantage of the army’s adjutators movement, which therefore led to their concern that increased within the army, radicalising them. The development of the Leveller movement was the result of economic distress which was cause by the civil war, particularly in London, in a time of political and religious uncertainty. At the end of April 1647, eight cavalry regiments chose men as representatives for the adjutators and met with the senior officers. The Levellers ideas, under their leader John Lilburne, had clearly influenced the policies of Henry Ireton and Oliver Cromwell condemning them as â€Å"grandees†, which expressed them having deceived what people were fighting for in the first place; driving them to accept a less moderate approach to their negotiations with the King in years to come. The Levellers had come up with a pamphlet called the â€Å"The Case of the Army Truly Stated†, which led on to the Putney Debates in October and November of 1647. The Putney Debates had the main focus on the ideas of the Levellers for the extension if the franchise which had provoked a fiery argument between John Wildman and Ireton. Still Ireton spoke for the grandees which did include Cromwell and â€Å"insisted that the franchise should be restricted to those with a permanent fixed interest in the kingdom† as Seel 2 says, and that the vote should go to those who possessed property or there would otherwise be a â€Å"disturbance to a good constitution of the kingdom†. This was seen as important because the views of the religious radicals made settlements more difficult and furthermore increased the tension of division among those in the army and in parliament. The politicisation of the New Model Army also played a significant role in the failure to reach a settlement in the years 1646 to 1649 between Charles and Parliament. What made the army politicised was the concerns of their wages of  £3 million in arrears and the possibility of being faced with the charges of committing offences from the First Civil War, as Parliament had not passed an indemnity act. The army presented Charles with the Heads of The Proposals in 1647, which links back to religious division in parliament, , under Cromwell and Ireton’s influence, putting forward more stricter terms such as religious toleration was to be more effective to a wider degree and that the army was to be controlled by parliament for only ten years instead of twenty, making the army seem like a political force however historian Coward 3 has put forward the argument that â€Å"the army was not apolitical when it was first established.† Despite these terms, Charles still refused to accept them which then led to the Vote of No Addresses in January 1648 and settled that no more future negotiations were to be made with Charles. The importance of this factor was important as the army had felt that they had been pushed to resort to drastic methods and realised that it was most likely that Charles would never accept them. Another important factor that contributed to the failure to reach a settlement was Charles’ intransigence. In July 1646 the Newcastle Propositions were offered to Charles, which still would have granted him much power if he’d have accepted them, but refused to accept them. At the end of December 1647 after refusing both the Newcastle Propositions and the Heads of Proposals, Charles made his escape from confinement at Hampton Court where he would sign the Engagement with the Scots, in which Charles had agreed to allow Presbyterianism in England for three years only if they would grant him a Scottish invasion that would enable him to return back to power. With the possibility of the invasion going ahead, the chances of another civil war had increased. In April 1648 the New Model Army met at Windsor to pray before facing their enemies and declared that Charles was a â€Å"man of blood†, which soon would be one of the religious reasons for Charles’ execution in January 1649. Furthermore another political reason such as the Presbyterians’ offer of the Newport Treaty to Charles, who was now being held captive on the Isle of Wight, was sent to him as a matter of desperation to end the Second Civil War and prevent another one from occurring. However, the army and Ireton were not prepared to allow these negotiations to be undertaken and were forced to act, Kishlansky 4 says â€Å"Ireton had always been the Army’s strategist, the penman who could write the stirring propaganda of the Army’s declaration† and that he demanded a â€Å"purge or dissolution of Parliament and a trial of the King†. For the Newport Treaty to continue, a vote in Parliament took place on 5th December which had 129 for the continuation, and 83 against it, leading Ireton to act immediately and organise the army led by Colonel Thomas Pride who purged Parliament of those who were in favour in negotiating with the King; through this action taken against Parliament, the Rump would take over and conclude that Charles was to be put to trial. In conclusion, the failure to reach a settlement in the year 1646 to 1649 was due to the main religious factors such as the Windsor Prayer meeting of April 1648 where Charles was seen as â€Å"a man of blood†, the religious division in Parliament between Political Presbyterians and Political Independents and his agreement with the Irish which reinforced his support of Catholicism and his defeat in the two civil wars which came across as God’s judgement on his cause. Nevertheless, the main political reasons were down to Charles’ intransigence, fear amongst those in Parliament and the army that Charles would agree to the terms of the Newport Treaty, and fear of him starting another civil war. Overall the main reason for the failure of reaching a settlement was because of religion, although politics became very important in years to come as Presbyterians and Independents became concerned and needed a settlement for the sake of the kingdom.

Autocratic-Democratic Continuum Model

Autocratic-Democratic Continuum Model Leadership This review begins with various definitions of leadership. It then introduces different styles of leadership from a variety of authors. The issue of leadership is an important issue that has intrigued many theoreticians and practitioners over the years, leading to much research and study. There is no one accepted definition of leadership, although there are many opinions put forward. Sergiovanni, (2001) suggests a moral substance to leadership, leadership is, after all, a struggle a quest to do the right thing. Yukl describes the bigger picture regarding the leadership of one person over many Most definitions of leadership reflect the assumption that it involves a social influence process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person [or group] over other people [or groups] to structure the activities and relationships in a group or organization. (1994, p3) The group plays an important part in leadership theory, which i will discuss in more detail later in the chapter. Bass gives leadership a positive connotation and defines it as an instrument of goal achievement where leadership is viewed as constructive behaviours pursuing group goals. (1990, p15-16) This is developed further with an autocratic perspective by (Gardner, 1990; Riches, 1994, 1997) suggesting that Leadership is the process in which a person exerts influence over individuals and groups through goal setting or activities. Smircich and Morgan develop the group thinking by highlighting the active involvement of followers in allowing leaders to take on an influencing role. They state Leadership is an obligation or perceived right on the part of certain individuals to define the reality of others. (1982, p258) In modern society organisations have become more accountable, organisational leadership has came to the forefront and is one of the most researched and analysed topics in the area of organisational development (Chapman, 1993). Research found that good leadership plays a vital role in creating the culture that enhances learning in schools (Brundrett Terrell, 2004). Successful leadership is invariably linked to school effectiveness. In the many lists produced by researchers, firm leadership (Reynolds 1991), professional leadership (Sammons et al. 1995) and outstanding leadership (Levine Lezotte 1990) are identified as major factors contributing to school effectiveness. Leadership has also been shown to have an impact upon school improvement processes (Leithwood Steinbach, 1993; Stoll Fink, 1996) and an effect upon school outcomes (Hallinger Heck, 1998; Southworth, 2001). For schools, the qualities of leadership and management are a crucial element in striving for effectiveness (Sammones, Thomas, Mortimore, Owen, Pennell and Hilman, 1994). Teddlie and Reynolds indicate that leadership is usually provided by the headteacher or principal, they found that leadership is now centrally synonymous with school effectiveness for many, including many operating within school improvement paradigm (Teddlie Reynolyds, 2000:141). As such, the ability to set clear organisational goals has been found to be a relevant variable linking leadership and school effectiveness. Leadership Theories Development through history They are many theories on leadership which have been developed over the years and surely many more to follow. Here is a brief summary of the theory behind the subject. The individual leader, they are people who have always been scrutinised throughout history, this scrutiny has brought about The great man theory, the view that leaders are born and not made, this implies that the process of selection of leaders is crucial, and that training and development in leadership has no outcome. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a series of qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird, 1940[8]; Stogdill, 1948[9]; Mann, 1959[10]) prompted researchers to take a drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing the extant literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations. Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait, as situational approaches (see alternative leadership theories below) posited that individuals can be effective in certain situations, but not others. This approach dominated much of the leadership theory and research for the next few decades. Trait Theory, this claims that certain personality traits determine success in leadership. Stogdill (1969) found that some personality traits were common to successful leaders, there has been difficulty in identifying them consistently and agreeing definitions of personality traits. Situation theory is based on the view that leadership cannot be examined away from the group over which leadership is being exercised. The view is that leadership is a group phenomenon which will vary according to situations and over time. Also, leadership is not a one way process of influence. Leaders are influenced by followers as well as vice versa. The studies that were carried out tended to be in small ad hoc groups in controlled settings (eg Lippett and White). Leadership styles, there are two ways of analysing styles of leadership: one is on the range from autocratic to democratic, which i jave chosen as my focus for my action research project, and is associated with the work of Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973). The other is based on the relative dominance in a leader of concern for people and relationships or concern for production or results; this theory is associated with Blake and Mouton (1964). They also explained that The point to be emphasised here is that managerial styles are not fixed. They are not unchanging. They are determined by a range of factors. Many are subject to modification through formal instruction or self training. (Blake and Mouton, 1964 p.13) Behaviour theory is based on ten work of Halpin who suggests that leaders do two main things: Initiate structures: establish goals, set up channels of communication, establish procedures and review processes. Consider others: create a climate of trust, respect and warmth Halpin suggests that effective leadership is associated with high performance on both points. Contingency theories are complex, they recognise the interaction of leaders and their environments. They are two models: The model developed by Hersey and Blanchard (1977) identifies both directive and supportive behaviour in a leader, which can be modified according to the level of development, experience and commitment of the subordinate. The model developed by Fiedler (1967) combines an analysis of the leaders style (people or production?) with an analysis of three variables of the situation which can be seen as favourable or unfavourable to the leader, e.g. the level of formal authority. Fiedlers research indicates that a task orientated leader is best suited to a situation that is particularly favourable or unfavourable and that a people orientated leader is more effective where the situation is not particularly favourable or unfavourable. Action Leadership was developed from Contingency Theory by Adair (1984) who suggested that there were three main dimensions to leadership. These were; a concern for task, a concern for the team or group and a concern for individuals. Effective leaders will pay attention to all three dimensions. Adair then identifies a set of key actions which all leaders must perform in respect of each of these three dimensions. Leadership and Management Leadership tends to be equated with vision and values and management with processes and structures: Leadership and management are not synonymous terms. One can be a leader without being a manager. One can, for example, fulfil many of the symbolic, inspirational educational and normative functions of a leader and thus represent what an organization stands for without carrying any of the formal burdens of management. Conversely, one can manage without leading. An individual can monitor and control organizational activities, make decisions, and allocate resources without fulfilling the symbolic, normative, inspirational, or educational functions of leadership. (Schon, 1984, p. 36) Here the differentiation is not intended to distinguish between roles. Schon goes on to say that since we generally expect managers to lead, it may be permissible to treat management and leadership as one, although he does identify the concepts of: management as science and the art of managing. This latter concept may have more in common with leadership. In the classic research of Lewin et al. (1939) at the University of Iowa, three leadership behaviours, or styles, were examined: the autocratic, the democratic, and the laissez-faire. It was found that the autocratic style tends to centralise authority and dictate work methods, while the democratic style tends to involve employees in decision making, delegate authority, encourage participation, and use feedback to coach employees. Of the three, the laissez-faire style was found to be ineffective in every performance criterion. This original research of Lewins greatly influenced other studies conducted after World War II. The most significant of these studies were performed by the Ohio State Group (Shartle, 1949, 1950; Fleishman, 1953; Halpin and Winer, 1957; Hemphill and Coons, 1957), as well as took  place at the University of Michigan (Katz, Maccoby and Morse, 1950; Katz, Maccoby, Gurin and Floor, 1951; Katz and Kahn, 1952). All these studies found that leadership displaying concern for people produced better results than that displaying concern for production. The Ohio State Group formulated dimensions of consideration and initiating structure. The first of these signifies the extent that the working relationships a leader has with subordinates is characterised by mutual trust and respect for group members ideas and feelings. The latter signifies the extent that a leader is likely to define and structure her/his role and the roles of group members for the sake of seeking goal attainment. The Michigan studies spoke of employee orientation and production orientation. The former emphasises the extant that a leader values interpersonal relationships and accepts individual differences among subordinates; this is associated with high group productivity. The second emphasises the extent to which a leader values the technical or task aspects of the job and is concerned with accomplishing the groups tasks; this is associated with low group productivity and low job satisfaction. Autocratic leadership The Autocratic Leadership Style was first described by Lewin, Lippitt, and White in 1938, along with the democratic leadership and the laissez-faire leadership styles. The autocratic leadership style is sometimes referred to as the directive leadership style. Autocratic leadership can be said to be synonymous to dictatorship where only one person has the authority over the followers or workers. Their decision has to be taken as the golden rule and should never be questioned. They plan out everything and order their subordinates to work according to their rules. For instance, if a company has an autocratic leader as the Managing Director, the employees in the company would have to work as per the rules set down by him. They would not be expected to make any contribution from their side, which may actually help in enhancing the productivity of the company. In short, the autocratic leader has full control of those around him and believes to have the complete authority to treat them as he wants. The premise of the autocratic management style is the belief that in most cases the worker cannot make a contribution to their own work, and that even if they could, they would not. According to Douglas McGregor this belief system leads to the mindset of Theory X (Dessler 37). McGregor believes Theory X workers have no interest in work in general, including the quality of their work. Professor Henry Daryanto interprets McGregors theory as mangers dealing with this theory by using carrots and sticks. The carrot is usually a monetary incentive, such as piece-rate pay schemes while the stick is docking pay for poor quality or missed production targets (Daryanto). It appears only money and threats can motivate the lazy, disinterested worker. The natural management style for a manager with this Theory X belief system would be to favour is the autocratic management style. Autocratic managers attempt to control work to the maximum extent possible. A major threat to control is complexity. Complex jobs are more difficult to learn and workers who master such jobs are scarce and possess a certain amount of control over how the job is done. An autocratic managers attempt to simplify work to gain maximum control. Autocratic managers prefer a strict top-down; chain-of-command approach to management be practiced. Management style is a term that refers to the nature of the relationship between managers and non-managerial employees. It includes not only the personal relationship between people but also the style of communication and the attitudes that managers have of employees and the attitudes they generate in employees. The term leadership is sometimes used. This refers to the ways in which managers achieve the attitudes and actions of their employees. Usually the actions desired are those which lead to the achievement of organizational objectives. A form of leadership therefore implies a style of management. One particular style of management is autocratic, which our learning team sometimes refers to it as antiquated. The autocratic style of management is based on the use of coercion as a means of control in an attempt to force employees to behave in a particular way. The response of employees to such coercion is seen to be extremely authoritative, that is they will do as they are told because the alternative may be unemployment. Another reaction by an employee to this autocratic style is they might only do the absolute minimum required of them to retain their jobs. Clearly productivity in such an organization will not be very high. Military and law enforce1ment organizations historically operate within an autocratic style of management, but this is seen as necessary in the situation in which they operate. Because of this acceptance resentment should not arise since there is an accepted of style of management in these organizational forms. Our learning team believes not only should a style of management be chosen according to the type of organization, it should be chosen to suit the particular situation in a given organization. For example the means of dealing with a disciplinary matter will differ from that used in a problem-solving situation. The style of management of routine day to day activities will differ from the management of project and design activities. Managers must therefore choose a management style to suit the situation. Our team also criticizes the autocratic style and suggests that such a style will lead to conflict, low motivation and low productivity. We all advocate a more democratic style of management. This does not mean management by committee or making decisions by democratic voting, it means involving people in organizations in some aspects of the running of the organization. The communication style of an autocratic leader is usually described as one way. They tell you exactly what they want done. The feedback you would get from this type of leader would generally be unplanned. They would simply tell you when youve made a mistake. The decision making process is usually unilateral and they accomplish goals by directing people. Now that might not sound like the type of leader youd follow, but there are actually situations when this style is effective. In the workplace, some conditions may simply call for urgent action, and in these cases an autocratic style of leadership may be best style to adopt. Surprisingly, most workers have already worked for an autocratic leader and therefore have little trouble adapting to that style. In fact, in times of stress or emergency some subordinates may actually prefer an autocratic style they prefer to be told exactly what to do. So to summarize the autocratic leadership style is very effective when times are stressful, but very stressful during those times when the pressure is off the followers or coworkers. Though autocratic leadership style is tyrannical, it has proved to be very efficient during certain situations and conditions. Autocratic leadership works positively during emergency and stressful situations. When such situations arise in a company or organization, most people are confused and are not able to reach a common solution. During such times, having an autocratic leader would be great as he would take the reins in his hand and would direct the workers or employees to move forward. For instance, there is a terrorist attack at some place and the soldiers have to rescue innocent people from there. If many people try to give solutions, it may take time and the mission may end in failure. In such situations, having one autocratic person to command the rest of the group on how to go about with the mission can lead to success. Another situation where the autocratic leadership style proves appropriate is while doing group projects. Many group projects tend to fail because group members depend on each other to make decisions. Such situations demand the need of an authoritative leader who can make decisions for the group. The leader should determine the ways in which the project would be done, divide the job among the members, and also set a deadline for completion of the project. Autocratic leadership may have its benefits, however, in most cases it is seen as something that is undesirable. Autocratic leadership style promotes a one sided conversation and due to this the creative and leadership skills of the employees become restrictive. As the leader would have all the authority, there is a chance that he would exploit his employees. There have been cases where an authoritative employer has fired employees because they showed the courage of disagreeing with him. It is also said that having an autocratic leader hinders workplace communication and socialization. It is very important to have a cordial work environment, where everyone is friendly. It can also give rise to disagreements and conflicts, if a group or company is led by an autocratic leader. In the military and other urgent circumstances, people may prefer the ability to be told what do next. According to Money Zine, In fact, in times of stress or emergency, some subordinates may actually prefer an autocratic stylethey prefer to be told exactly what to do. The autocratic leadership style is very effective when times are stressful. Lengthy debate has no place in many work environments, and this form of leadership limits arguments. It allows employees to have one task, and that is to work, which could mean that the employees master their tasks and become proficient enough to help grow the company. This method of leadership may lead to more pressure from the boss on the rest of the employees, who then push back against the management method. Theft and other issues may arise because of a lack of workplace satisfaction. According to Smart Entrepreneur, This is one of the least desirable when it comes to building trusting relationships and making friends. In this system, one person has control over all of the workers or followers. Making friends is an important part of life, and if this is destroyed, it can create an unhappy environment. This translates to the quality of work, and not being seen as human can cause more resistance to new aspects of the job. A little autonomy and social appeal can make a difference in retaining good workers. 1.3 Participatory Leadership The premise of the participatory management style is the belief that the worker can make a contribution to the design of their own work. The belief system that lead managers to this conclusion was originally put forth as a management theory by McGregor, who called it Theory Y. Theory Y advocates believe that workers are internally motivated. They take satisfaction in their work, and would like to perform at their best. Symptoms of indifference are a result of the modern workplace, which restricts what a worker can do and separates him from the final results of his efforts. It is managements job to change the workplace so that the worker can, once again, recapture his pride of workmanship. Elements of Theory Y are evident in Demings discussion of the role of a manager of people, presented earlier. Managers who practice the participatory style of management tend to engage in certain types of behaviour. To engage the workers they establish and communicate the purpose and direction of the organization. This is used to help develop a shared vision of what the organization should be, which is used to develop a set of shared plans for achieving the vision. The managers role is that of a leader. By her actions and words she shows the way to her employees. She is also a coach, evaluating the results of her peoples efforts and helping them use the results to improve their processes. She works with the leaders above her in the organization to improve the organizations systems and the organization as a whole. 1.4 Democratic Leadership The Democratic Leadership Style was first described by Lewin, Lippitt, and White in 1938 along with the autocratic leadership and the laissez-faire leadership styles. They distinguished democratic leadership from autocratic and laissez-faire styles, arguing that democratic leaders relied upon group decision making, active member involvement honest praise and criticism, and a degree of comradeship. By contrast, leaders using the other styles were either domineering or uninvolved. Kariel (1956) argues that Lewins notion of democracy is manipulative and elitist and not democratic. The dynamics of democratic leadership, however, are not well understood. In fact, there is no clear and well-developed definition of the term within academia. In a classic review, Gibb (1969, p258) lamented the fact that the basic psychological meaning of democratic leadership had nowhere been spelled out. Twenty years later, Miriam Lewin (1987) agreed. repeating Kurt Lewins earlier call for a better understanding of the detailed nature of democratic leadership and followership through social science research (p. 138). The democratic style was also included by Daniel Goleman in 2002 as one of his six leadership styles. In Bass (1990, 19-20) handbook on leadership a definition is provided: Leadership is an interaction between two or more members of a group that often involves a structuring or restructuring of the situation and the perceptions and expectations of the membersLeadership occurs when one group member modifies the motivation or competencies of others in the group. Any member of teh group can exhibit some amount of leadership Bass further argues that Leadership is behaviour, not position and this can be said of the democratic method of leadership. The democratic leader gives followers a vote in nearly every decision the team makes. The process involved with being a democratic leader is very time consuming because decisions are nearly always made together. The democratic leadership style is able to quickly build flexibility and responsibility and can help identify new ways to do things. This leadership style is best used when the followers are knowledgeable about the organizations process and change is needed. For example, this style is used when the leader needs to introduce fresh ideas into the organization to help with an old process. Lewin, Lippitt and White were one of the first to categorize leadership styles in terms of behavioral characteristics. Prior to their work, leadership traits were the focus of leadership studies. Under democratic leadership, the people have a more participatory role in the decision making process. One person retains final say over all decisions but allows others to share insight and ideas. Most of all, democratic leaders must seek to make members into leaders (Theilen Poole, 1986). This is often a highly effective form of leadership. People are more likely to excel in their positions and develop more skills when they feel empowered, and people are empowered when they are involved in the decision-making process. Although it may take some time to achieve full participation from a group, the end result will be rewarding if you can manage to establish a power-sharing environment in your group project. You will find that democratic practices often lead to a more productive and higher quality work group. Examples of democratic leadership: Asking all group members for ideas and input. Voting on the best course of action in a project. Asking group members to work with their strengths and provide input on how to divide the work. ]li]Enabling members to work at their own pace and set their own deadlines. Pitfalls of Democratic Leadership It doesnt take too much imagination to think of ways that democratic leadership could backfire during a group project. As you probably know, some members of a group will work well on their own and complete all work in a timely fashion. But there are other workers who will procrastinate-and that can lead to disaster. If you are a natural democratic leader, it might be necessary to learn some traits of the autocratic or bureaucratic leaders and tap into them as necessary. Always have a backup plan on hand! Undemocratic leadership styles can result in a variety of undesirable outcomes: dependent and apathetic followers (Barber. 1984 Heifetz Sinder. 1987; Manz Sims. 1989; White Lippitt, 1960). In addition, undemocratic leadership can undermine the pursuit of ethical ideals, such as self-determination, personal development and democratic decision making (Barber, 1984: Sashkin, 1984). 1.5 Laissez-faire leadership Laissez faire style simply means a delegate approach to leadership. Many researchers have found out that those children who grow under laissez-faire leadership establishments, happen to be the less productive in any group. This was also reinforced by these children making more demands upon their leader, as researchers have come to ascertain, amidst showing little in terms of cooperation as well as the inability to work more independently. Most laissez faire styles offer no or very little guidance to the members of the same group, amidst leaving the making of decisions to other group members. As much a it could be overtly effective in those situations where most employees or members happen to be highly qualified and skilful in their area experience and know-how, it has often led to poor roles definition plus a sheer lack in motivation. In this leadership style, the head or leader onlysets that overall priority or instruction, where then he gets out of the way so that things can be left to run on their own. With the usage of this leadership style, the leader just accepts wholesome responsibility for many of the decisions that come into fruition, though the decision-making has been left to his team. Also, the team members are also left to evaluate, analyse and transform issue and all problems just as they come. Laissez faire is very appropriate for mature and acute senior teams, which have a track record of proof and have confidence in handling lots of issues. The most pitfall and shortcoming of this type of leadership is strictly failure. In case of anything going wrong, the leader has no clout to blame his team, but a chance to see his shortcomings. But in each management style, or leadership style, the motivation towards good leadership and overall output of members or employees are held up within the management theories, that offer a dimension for all leaders to use for the realisation of their utmost goals. Leadership without goals is failure in management. Some of these theories include the Hawthorne model or experiments, which lay emphasis on human relations. In this model, the work-place lightning did improve the productivity during the experiment and after, that is, within the groups. It has thus reinforced the fact that individuals are not those rational and covert economic beings as assumed by the classical theorists, as well as the emphasis of social interaction and the improvement of peoples work once they have been valued. Other theories of management include the rule set or bureaucracy, stipulated by Max Weber and gave the world the red tape, since it lays emphasis on rules and overall regulations. Also, the scientific theory of management by Frederick Taylor brought out the notion that each task must be scientifically and also rationally optimised for overall productivity, which was perfected by the Ford Company and the monetary incentives involved brought perfect results. Lastly, the process approach theory by Henry Fayol has been clear in leadership styles and in all management levels, even in laissez faire, as it lays much emphasis on planning, organising, coordinating, commanding, controlling and even the staff and line principles. The theories are not leadership styles but they harness the existing leadership and management styles. Disadvantages of leadership styles As much as the leadership style known as paternalistic management contains some autocratic dynamism, it comes as being a bit warm and a bit fuzzy within the precincts of its approach. In its paternal aspect, it harkens in the line of a father being firm though has good intentions in the life of ones children and in the business limelight, the employees. Just like most paternal beings are, except for those dads who keep saying: I told you, the typical paternalistic manager most of the times explains the specific reason as to why he has taken certain actions in management and for his employees. He is very far from being autocratic and looks after the harmony within his or her team. A manager of this calibre tends to provide that environment that is perfectly well rounded for all within his management wing, even including a prior consideration of their personal and social aspects in their lives. In this respect, there seems to occur some kind of upward communication all the way from the tip to the high ranks, in terms of provision of feedback which could be well used for the transformation of some aspects within the organisation for the achievement of employee satisfaction and avid motivation. Those in support of paternalistic management style have related to it as providing a huge movement towards the motivation of employees more than an autocratic style, since the employees tends to fill the leadership as considering their welfare and thus do care for them more as people and not just like robots. Since the objective that comes with keeping the motivation of the employees is highly included in this leadership style, there tends to be an overt probability that is laid towards an increased loyalty of employee and also a minimal turnover. The overall disadvantage with this leadership style depicts the overall disadvantage of leadership styles, sharing such similarities with those elements of autocratic techniques of management styles, such that they have led to the dependency upon the leader thro