Implementing change Essay Example for Free

Implementing change Essay Managers are entrusted with a leadership role for an organization with an aim to set out objectives and create the right environment and effective techniques to meet those objectives. There are supposed to come up with creative ideas on the change needed in the organization and how that change should be implemented with minimal difficulties while at the same time reaping maximum benefits from the change. A manager’s role and responsibility in implementing change One major step towards achieving this is of course through having a very clear sense of goals. When the management is equipped with a clear sense of goals and objectives, then it will be possible for an organization or an institution to have a new direction. The manager is important at this stage. He or she is responsible for coming up with specific objectives and determining what direction the institution is supposed to take. It is imperative that the leader or in this case the manager learn to be patient because in many cases change demands patience. As a manager, one should be well informed on his or her team so as to have a good knowledge on which members can be best used. Banutu Banutu 2003) The task of management in times of implementing change demands good communication skills. One of the manager’s main tasks is relaying ideas, mission, goals, and objectives of the institution to the subordinates. It is therefore important that the manager is skilled in communication so as to effectively hammer the point home. Good communication skills are two way. The manager should also be a good observer and listener so as to understand any information or feedback that may be coming from the team members. Managers should also act as role models to their team by for instance setting an example of sacrifice. To make the process of change easier, the manager’s behavior should provide a model for motivation. He or she should be ready to listen to team members, respect them, delegate some powers to them, and assist them. Such characters and actions go a long way in motivating the team and elevating their interest to the task at hand. Team members are not only inspired with a mission but also motivated to initiate novelty and new ways of thinking. For a change process to be successful, the manager is supposed to build trust among group members and ensure that they think and work as a unit as opposed to working as individuals. The manager should be able to nurture intimacy among members, demonstrate self confidence, integrity, and honesty. He or she should be able to connect real life personal experiences with transformational requirements or behaviors of the institution. The manager should have a strong sense of involvement with the team and its activities. This way, the influence process becomes easier and more effective. It is imperative the manager fully understands the task ahead and relays that to the subordinates. This attribute should be coupled with high level commitment to the institution. Integrity and consistency are paramount in the change process if the laid down objectives are to be realized. (Banutu Banutu 2003) Handling staff resistance to change One of the most common characteristics in the change process is resistance towards change by members of the organization. Though resistance to change is mainly viewed negatively, it can have positive outcomes too. For instance, staff resistance can lead to a functional conflict. This sought of conflict stimulates a healthy debate among members and the leadership as well. Such a debate sheds light on the various faces of change and ultimately leads to a better decision in the end. Staff resistance though could act as a major obstacle to an organization’s pursuit to achieve change and progress. If the staff is adamant to change its mindset to fit and adapt with changing times, then the organization will experience difficulties adapting and achieving progress. Managers are supposed to come up with ways to deal with staff resistance and ensure that the staff is collaborative instead of the other way round. (Kelly 1992) Communicating with staff members is a significant step in dealing with resistance. The leadership should take its time in demonstrating the logic of change to the staff and get rid of any chances of misinformation or misunderstanding. As indicated earlier, involvement of the staff in decision making is a beneficial tactic in ensuring that staff members not only implement change but also feel as being a part of it. This reduces the level of resistance, increases the change quality of the staff, and achieves commitment from the staff. The manager can also provide individuals who can handle and manage change activities or act as one. The manager or the change agents can offer facilitation and support to staff members so the idea of change and its actual implementation can be easier and more understandable. (Holton 2003) Another method through which managers can avert potential resistance is through negotiation with the staff. The management can offer the staff something like a reward in exchange of lessened resistance. The manager should however be wary of blackmail because some staff members may take advantage of this and demand rewards in any event of a change process. When ‘clean’ strategies fail or deemed unreliable to avert staff resistance, the manager can use cooptation and manipulation techniques so as to achieve his or her ends. Making facts look appealing more than they really are and hatching force rumors can get the staff to accept change and actually look forward to its implementation. The personalities leading the resistance can be bought off by the manager by offering them important positions in the change process. They are made to feel as if they engaged in opposing change but in actual sense the plan goes unhitched. The last trick on the book is the use of coercion. The manager gives direct threats to the staff members and applies direct force. Other measures include transfer of members, demotion, poor letter recommendation, or outright firing. It is important that the staff understands they are not indispensable as the change that the organization is seeking is more important than an individual career. (Bass Avolio 1994) Steps of the change process The management with the collaboration and active participation of the staff should engage themselves in assessing the organization’s goals and objectives. There should be an extensive understanding of why the organization is taking the change path and how well equipped it is to actually implement its objectives. In the event that the management feels time is not ripe for a particular change process to be initiated, then it can be shelved until the right time comes. The management should put all facts on the table and analyze them before it starts to implement them. All possible scenarios to the process should be considered. In the planning process, it is important that the manager ensures that staff members fully comprehend the plan ahead of them. It is also important that staff members are to a certain level involved in the process. The reasons for using participation, as discussed earlier, is to gain the collaboration of the staff and reduce chances of resistance. Carrying out the actual change process calls for dedication from everyone involved. Any challenges such as staff resistance should be dealt with swiftly. During the evaluation, the management should go back to the aims and objectives outlined during the planning process. External evaluators should be invited so as to avoid any chances of bias. (Banutu Banutu 2003) Conclusion Only one thing is certain in any place and that is change. Organizations, just as human beings, are in a process of change. It is up to the management to ensure that this is change is to the positive. The modern world is characterized by cutthroat competition and there is no room for being stagnant.

How to Make Sandblasted Signs :: essays papers

How to Make Sandblasted Signs Process & Analysis How To Make Sandblasted Signs. The only necessary tools you need are: basswood, or red wood, rubber masking, spray glue, exacto knife, sand paper, paint (which most of these items you can find at your local hardware store). Also you need to know someone in your community who has a sandblasting machine to sandblast your sign. You will also need a design for your board. (It can be your name, or a symbol of what ever you want it to be.) First thing you need to do is to get some bass or red wood. Cut the boards to the exact size you want by using a band saw or hand saw. Also, use the following methods such as gluing, planing, and squaring the boards to the exact length you want your sign to be. Once you have squared your board with the square, your sign will be even on each side. The next step will be to apply the rubber masking to your board. Now you are ready to put your design on the rubber masking. Apply the spray glue to the rubber masking. Once you have sprayed the glue (in a well ventilated area) to the masking you should wait for about 2 minutes for the adhesive to dry, and begin to cut out your design you have chosen. This is a very time consuming task so it is best to take your time. This is the time to start cutting on your masking. It is best to leave about one half of an inch around the outside edge of the board. Use your exacto knife to cut the masking. Make sure to center your design and that it is suitably sized to your board. It is important not to make the cuts too small or the sand will tear the rubber masking off. You need to find someone in the community that does sandblasting. This could be at a monument engraving service near by. They use a special sand that is very fine to cut the wood. Sandblasters also use an air compressor to shoot the air and sand out at a high rate of speed. This process will cost between $2-$5 and the time to complete is approximately two days. Once you get the sign back from the sandblasting service, you are ready to

The Blindness of King Lear

In the classic Vincent Price horror film, THEATER OF BLOOD a demented Shakespearean actor murders critics who have savaged him in the past with a series of gruesome traps based on death scenes from Shakespeare’s work. At the film’s conclusion, a critic faces permanent blindness as punishment for being blind to the actor’s greatness in the same way King Lear was blind to his own folly and ego.When one reads the TRAGEDY OF KING LEAR, one can see that the curse of Lear is that he was blind to the full spectrum of the consequences of his actions. Lear had a single minded approach to how he defined his outlook of the world and such blindness lead to the deaths of his friends and family as well as the creation of a needless war with France.At the beginning of the play, Lear wishes to divide his throne amongst his three daughters. Lear opts to tie the division of his throne into the performance of his daughters in a speech delivery contest and this raises the ire of Cor delia, as she refuses to take part in such a contest. This results in Lear disowning her and that set into motion a chain of events where Cordelia marries the leader of France which provides France with the justification to invade Lear’s country to seize territory; these events would never had been possible without Lear’s narrow-minded paranoia governing his psyche and his actions.From this, it is evident that Lear’s â€Å"blindness† to his daughter’s feeling lead to the â€Å"blindness† in being able to see the consequences of his actions. Lear conducted himself in a manner that was impetuous and ego driven. His inability to understand that he was not being insulted or rejected by Cordelia, but rather Cordelia ( a character who is clearly  defined as having a strong moral core) was rejecting the notion that she should compete with her sisters for her father’s rewards.The irony to this is that because King Lear saw an enemy where an enemy did not exist, he fed the real enemy (France) with the justification it was loosely looking for in order to take an action against Lear.FOOLNo, he's a yeoman that has a gentleman to his son; for he's a mad yeoman that sees his son a gentleman before him.The character of the Fool often represents Lear’s subconscious, as it is the character of the fool that impresses upon Lear the importance of paying attention to what actually â€Å"is† and what truly exists in the world, as opposed to paying too much attention to what is merely his own personal perception of reality; a perception that is tailored by Lear’s desire for what he wishes to be true. That is, what exists and what one wishes to exist are two separate creatures.Conversely, this is not to infer that Lear is merely paranoid. There is great need to be wary of foreign invaders and influence. History has shown that the world has suffered my imperial expansions into sovereign territories and it would no t be outside of Lear’s proper reason to worry that a foreign power would wish to threaten the stability of his kingdom. It had not been without precedent that members of royalty’s own family conspired against them, so Lear’s response was not without merit. Lear’s problem, however, derived from the fact that he saw enemies where enemies did not exist (as was  the case with his daughter), took the advice of those who ultimately were not helpful to him (his close associates) and, essentially opted to ignore the advice of the person who had his best interests at heart: the Fool.FOOLHe's mad that trusts in the tameness of a wolf, a horse's health, a boy's love, or a whore's oath.With that statement, The Fool provides a cohesive logical center to the character of Lear, who has gone blindly adrift amidst his own conspiracy theory passions. It is ironic that the Fool truly is the wisest person in the cast of characters, yet is outwardly dubbed a fool, while tho se who should know better are in decisive or outright wrong.At certain points, Lear does at least initially make an attempt to take the advice of the Fool or at least give the Fool’s advice serious contemplation as evidenced in the following response to the Fool’s commentary:KING LEAR It shall be done; I will arraign them straight. Come, sit thou here, most learned justicer; Thou, sapient sir, sit here. Now, you she-foxes!At this point, it appears that Lear is leaving some of his blindness behind and has finally seen the truth. The Fool has made a wise-man of the king, as the king appears to finally understand the concept that a clear understanding of a real threat vs. a perceived threat is reached. Lear’s problem, however, is that he is always seeking third party  validation of his beliefs. He will prescribe to the Fool’s advice for a short time, but then will waiver and side with his associates who are more willing to tell him what he wants to hear. T his allows the Fool to become symbolic of a moral conscious. When the Fool appears and reappears throughout the play, it symbolizes Lear’s central, endemic problem: reason, logic and clarity of thought are inconsistent with Lear. As a leader, is judgment is not sound and prone to radical faltering.A great deal of the irony of the play derives from the fact that while Cordelia appears to be the instigator of the loss of Lear’s throne, it is actually she who is the one who seeks to restore Lear. Lear’s other daughters, Goneril and Regan, ultimately prove that their loyalties lie with the material aspects of the throne and their true natures surface when they start to squabble amongst themselves over the affections of Edmund. All of this provides a scenario that is more damaging to Lear’s self-preservation than he initially perceived. In other words, he never should have directed his venom towards Cordelia, but did so because of his perpetual blindness towar ds what actually is vs. what he perceives reality to be. In reality, the threats lie with the â€Å"good† daughters such as Goneril, as evidenced in the following dialogue where it is clear she shares little regard for the value of Lear’s life.GONERIL By day and night he wrongs me; every hour He flashes into one gross crime or other, That sets us all at odds: I'll not endure it: His knights grow riotous, and himself upbraids usOn every trifle. When he returns from hunting,I will not speak with him; say I am sick: If you come slack of former services, You shall do well; the fault of it I'll answerIn the following passage, a clearly unhinged King Lear tries to make sense of the disastrous situation that he finds himself in, all the result of the foolish wedge he drove between himself and his daughter(s) when he conceived of the ill-advised and ill-fated speech contest:KING LEAR No, no, no, no! Come, let's away to prison: We two alone will sing like birds i' the cage: Whe n thou dost ask me blessing, I'll kneel down, And ask of thee forgiveness: so we'll live, And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues Talk of court news; and we'll talk with them too, Who loses and who wins; who's in, who's out; And take upon's the mystery of things, As if we were God’s spies: and we'll wear out, In a wall'd prison, packs and sects of great ones, That ebb and flow by the moon.Unfortunately, as much as he wishes it were possible, Lear can not correct the past. It has been said that all human beings develop their core, central beliefs revolving around the fact that their life experiences create their perception of the world.  In Lear’s situation, as a King and leader of a nation, he was never used to hearing the word â€Å"no† as those looking to remain in the favor of the king and avoid his wrath would simply not take up a position that the King would perceive as threatening. Hence, King Lear de veloped a predictable and thoroughly unhealthy cause and effect response to the word â€Å"no† to where any negative sentiment would result in retaliation to the (perceived) threat.Ultimately, Lear realizes his error when he loses his thrown, sees his family fall apart and then has to contend with internal soul searching in order to find some sort of moral lesson that could at least rationalize the entire experience within his own heart as having ultimately been worth a greater good. That greater good is, essentially, Lear realizing the error of his ways, but his realization does nothing to reverse the damage. In fact, the final result of all the conflict in the play yields the death of Cordelia, the only daughter who truly loved him.As such, Lear eventually must give up his blindness to what his emotions have created and see the world for what it truly is. Unfortunately for King Lear, these realizations come very late in the equation and his lessons are learned at a point th at is far beyond where a benevolent conclusion could have been reached. This is why the story of King Lear is called a tragedy.

Franz Boas, Father of American Anthropology

German-American anthropologist Franz Boas was one of the most influential social scientists of the early twentieth century, noted for his commitment to cultural relativism and as a staunch opponent of racist ideologies. Boas was arguably the most innovative, active, and prodigiously productive of the first generation of anthropologists in the U.S. He is best known for his curatorial work at the American Museum of National History in New York and for his nearly four-decade career teaching anthropology at Columbia University, where he built the first anthropology program in the country and trained the first generation of anthropologists in the U.S.  His graduate students went on to establish many of the first and most highly regarded anthropology programs in the country. Fast Facts: Franz Boas Born: July 9, 1858 in Minden, GermanyDied: December 22, 1942 in New York City, New YorkKnown For: Considered the Father of American AnthropologyEducation: University of Heidelberg, University of Bonn, University of KielParents: Meier Boas and Sophie MeyerSpouse: Marie Krackowizer Boas (m. 1861-1929)Notable Publications: The Mind of Primitive Man (1911), Handbook of American Indian Languages (1911), Anthropology and Modern Life (1928), Race, Language, and Culture (1940)Interesting Facts: Boas was an outspoken opponent of racism, and used anthropology to refute the scientific racism that was popular during his time. His theory of cultural relativism held that all cultures were equal, but simply had to be understood in their own contexts and by their own terms. Early Life Boas was born in 1858 in Minden, in the German province of Westphalia. His family was Jewish but identified with liberal ideologies and encouraged independent thinking. From a young age, Boas was taught to value books and became interested in the natural sciences and culture. He followed his interests in his college and graduate studies, focusing primarily on the natural sciences and geography while attending the University of Heidelberg, the University of Bonn, and the University of Kiel, where he graduated with a Ph.D. in physics. Research In 1883, after a year of service in the military, Boas began field research in Inuit communities in Baffin Island, off the northern coast of Canada. This was the beginning of his shift toward studying people and culture, rather than the external or natural worlds, and would alter the course of his career. Spirit of the Earthquake, Nootka Mask, Pacific Norwest Coast American Indian. Possibly American Museum of Natural History. Acquisition Year: 1901. Heritage Images / Getty Images In 1886, he began the first of many fieldwork trips to the Pacific Northwest. Contrary to dominant views during that era, Boas came to believe—in part through his fieldwork—that all societies were fundamentally equal. He disputed the claim that fundamental differences existed between societies that were deemed civilized versus savage or primitive, according to the language of the time. For Boas, all human groups were fundamentally equal. They simply needed to be understood within their own cultural contexts. Boas worked closely with the cultural exhibits of the 1893 Worlds Columbian Exposition, or the Chicago Worlds Fair, which celebrated the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus arrival in the Americas. It was a huge undertaking and many of the materials gathered by his research teams went on to form the basis of the collection for the Chicago Field Museum, where Boas worked briefly following the Columbian Exposition. Eskimos At The Worlds Columbian Exposition, which Franz Boas helped create. Chicago History Museum / Getty Images Following his time in Chicago, Boas moved to New York, where he became assistant curator and later curator at the American Museum of Natural History. While there, Boas championed the practice of presenting cultural artifacts in their context, rather than attempting to arrange them according to imagined evolutionary progress. Boas was an early proponent of using dioramas, or replicas of scenes from daily life, in museum settings. He was a leading figure in the research, development, and launch of the Museums Northwest Coast Hall in 1890, which was one of the first museum exhibits on the life and culture of the indigenous people of North America. Boas continued to work at the Museum until 1905, when he turned his professional energies toward academia. Franz Boas was curator of the American Museum Of Natural History from 1896 to 1905. The New York Historical Society / Getty Images Work in Anthropology Boas became the first professor of anthropology at Columbia University in 1899, following three years as a lecturer in the field. He was instrumental in establishing the universitys anthropology department, which became the first Ph.D. program in the discipline in the U.S. Boas is often referred to as the Father of American Anthropology because, in his role at Columbia, he trained the first generation of U.S. scholars in the field. Famous anthropologists Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict were both his students, as was the writer Zora Neale Hurston. In addition, several of his graduate students went on to establish some of the first anthropology departments in universities across the country, including programs at the University of California at Berkeley, University of Chicago, Northwestern University, and beyond. The emergence of anthropology as an academic discipline in the U.S. connects closely to Boas work and, in particular, his lasting legacy through his former students. Boas was also a key figure in the founding and development of the American Anthropological Association, which remains the primary professional organization for anthropologists in the U.S. Chiefs Blanket with Bear Design, Totemism,Tlingit Tribe, Pacific Northwest Coast Indians. Totemism is a system of belief in which humans are said to have kinship or a mystical relationship with a spirit-being, such as an animal or plant. Heritage Images / Getty Images Main Theories and Ideas Boas is well known for his theory of cultural relativism, which held that all cultures were essentially equal but simply had to be understood in their own terms. Comparing two cultures was tantamount to comparing apples and oranges; they were fundamentally different and had to be approached as such. This marked a decisive break with the evolutionary thinking of the period, which attempted to organize cultures and cultural artifacts by an imagined level of progress. For Boas, no culture was more or less developed or advanced than any other. They were simply different. Along similar lines, Boas denounced the belief that different racial or ethnic groups were more advanced than others. He opposed scientific racism, a dominant school of thought at that time. Scientific racism held that race was a biological, rather than cultural, concept and that racial differences could thus be attributed to underlying biology. While such ideas have since been refuted, they were very popular in the early twentieth century. In terms of anthropology as a discipline, Boas supported what came to be known as the four-field approach. Anthropology, for him, constituted the holistic study of culture and experience, bringing together cultural anthropology, archaeology, linguistic anthropology, and physical anthropology. Franz Boas died of a stroke in 1942 at the Columbia University campus. A collection of his essays, articles, and lectures, which he had personally selected, was published posthumously under the title Race and Democratic Society. The book took aim at race discrimination, which Boas considered the most intolerable of all forms. Sources: Elwert, Georg. Boas, Franz (1858-1942). International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015. Pierpont, Claudia Roth. The Measure of America. The New Yorker, March 8, 2004.Who Was Franz Boas? PBS Think Tank, 2001.White, Leslie A. Book Review: Race and Democratic Society. American Journal of Sociology, 1947.