Discuss three factors that explain why employees tend to become Essay

Discuss three factors that explain why employees tend to become unmotivated to do their jobs - Essay Example Organizations are essentially formulating and implementing strategies that seek to ensure job satisfaction among the employees. In this regard it has become essential for organizations to ensure motivation among the employees as it would lead to greater job satisfaction that would lead to generational of organizational excellence. Analysis The efficiency of an organization is directly linked to the extent to which the employees put their efforts in the workplace. The extent to which employees do so is directly linked to the levels of motivation of the employees. This has made it necessary to determine aspects that tend to de-motivate employees in an organization so as to formulate strategies that seek to ward off practices that can lead to employee de-motivation. Among the top three factors that generate employee dissatisfaction include improper working conditions, poor employee compensation and benefits and organizational policies (Brounstein, 2000). Improper working conditions in a n organization include lack of hygiene in the workplace, improper lighting, and not providing basic amenities to the employees working in an organization. Compensation is a very critical area that has the most significant impact on the motivation levels of employees.

Leadership Styles of Ho Chi Minh and Ngo Dinh Diem Essay

Leadership Styles of Ho Chi Minh and Ngo Dinh Diem - Essay Example Ho Chi Minh stood to be more powerful in a symbolic context, a standing symbol of the opposition to American efforts, a foe that was elusive and almost impossible to reach by the modern warfare machinery at the disposal of America, a foe that evolved into a mythical personification of the Communist resistance (Duiker, 1996, p. 360). In fact, Ho Chi Minh stood to be the real driving force, sans whom, it would have been impossible to think of a united Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was a truly charismatic leader who appealed to the expectations and cultural affiliations of a nation that had remained subservient for a long time (Duiker, 1994, p. 212). There is no denying the fact that Ho Chi Minh’s strategy to project oneself as a humble and motivated, old man, with a sense of vision and a knack for down to earth wisdom commanded a great emotional appeal and sway amongst the Vietnamese masses (Duiker, 1994). He was decisively always in touch with the popular aspirations and sentiments. In contrast, Diem happened to be a modern Nationalist, an authoritarian leader who intended to pursue his own agenda (Jacobs, 2005, p. 11). Yet, Diem was always perceptible of popular aspirations and well understood that his leanings towards an American agenda will project him as a puppet nationalist, subservient to the will of the Americans. So, to achieve his purpose, he devised the strategy of rousing the South Vietnamese peasantry for support, while steadily reducing the nation’s dependence on America (Jacobs, 2005). Though being a competent leader, eventually he ended up being a scapegoat of the American disappointment. Though Diem pursued an authoritarian approach towards leadership, this approach on his part was necessary in the sense that a Western style approach towards leadership would not have gone well in a society that was given to a

Analyzing The Feminine Agenda In Plays English Literature Essay

Analyzing The Feminine Agenda In Plays English Literature Essay In the three dramas, Oedipus Rex, Death of a Salesman, and Macbeth the feminine characters craft their own personal agendas into the lives of the tragic heroes. Jocasta, Linda, and Lady Macbeth are all similar in their dynamic nature, ability to enable, and their need to care for others. The exploration of these similarities can also be considered the driving force which leads to each of the tragic heroes to their ultimate fates. This woman uses female methods of acquiring power- that is, manipulation- to further her supposed male ambition. The remarkable effectiveness of Lady Macbeths manipulation is apparent in several ways. She overrides all of his objections to the plot she construes. When Macbeth hesitates in murdering Duncan, Lady Macbeth persistently taunts his lack manhood and courage until he feels it necessary to prove himself. Interestingly, Lady Macbeth and her husband are presented as being deeply in love. However, many of Lady Macbeths speeches imply that her control over Macbeth is merely sexual. Lady Macbeths strong will persists throughout the murder of the king. Afterwards, however, she begins a slow slide into madness. Just as ambition affects her more so before the crime, so does the guilt afterwards. She falls victim to guilt and madness to a greater extent than her husband. The play implies that women can be as ambitious and cruel as men, but social constraints deny them the opportunitie s to pursue the ambition on their own. By the close of the play, Lady Macbeth has been reduced to sleepwalking and attempting to remove invisible bloodstains. When the plague of guilt has finally done its worse, Lady Macbeths sensitivity becomes her weakness. Subsequently, her husbands cruelty and her own guilt recoil on her, sending her into a madness which she is unable to cope with. In the end, she drives herself mad because of her guilt over the murders and she apparently kills herself. Linda Loman is Willys link to reality. She serves as a force of reason throughout the play. Linda is by far the toughest, most realistic, and most levelheaded character in the play. She sees what her husband is going through. Despite all of his failures and weaknesses, she supports him, loves him, and occasionally enables his behavior. Linda realizes that Willy is just an ordinary man living in the times, but she does not place blame on him. If anything, she loves him more because of it. Linda assumes the role of the protector, the defender, and the respecter. She protects Willy when Biff fights with him. Linda defends Willy to her sons who believe that he is going crazy. Also, she respects him enough to pretend that she is unaware of the fact that he is trying to kill himself and that he has lost his salary. She knows that Willy is suicidal, irrational, and difficult to deal with; however, she goes along with Willys fantasies in order to protect him from the criticism of others, as well as his own self-criticism. Linda tries to protect him, but her efforts are in vain. Linda enables Willy in many ways, but she also encourages him. She gently nudges him when it comes to paying the bills and communicating with Biff and she does not lose her temper when he becomes irate. Linda knows that Willy is secretly borrowing money from Charley to pay the life insurance and other bills. Despite all of this, Linda does nothing, afraid to aggravate Willys fragile mental condition. She goes as far as throwing Biff and Happy out of the house when their behavior threatens to upset Willy. Linda views freedom as an escape from debt, the reward of total ownership of the material goods that symbolize success and stability. Willys prolonged obsession with the American dream seems, over the long years of his marriage, to have left Linda internally conflicted. She appears to have kept her emotional life intact. As such, she represents the emotional core of the drama. Linda is a character driven by desperation and fear. Even though Willy is often rude to her, she protects him at all costs. According to Linda, Willy is only a little boat looking for a harbor (___________). She loves Willy, and more importantly, she accepts all of his shortcomings. Jocastas character is only strongly represented in the closing scenes in the play. Throughout the play, Jocasta tested the beliefs of those around her by feigning disbelief in the gods herself. Though she put up this false front, she did keep her faith. At the beginning of the scene wherein a messenger relayed word of Polybus death and Oedipus right to the throne of Corinth, we see Jocasta praying. In her first words, she attempts to make peace between Oedipus and Creon, pleading with Oedipus not Tiresiass terrifying prophecies as false. Unlike Oedipus, Jocasta distrusts the oracles and believes that whatever happens will do so by unforeseeable chance. However, she is still wary enough to honor Apollo with offerings in a crisis. Jocasta carries garlands and incense to the altar and tries to appeal to Apollo to purify the city of Thebes. Jocasta solves the riddle of Oedipuss identity before Oedipus does, and she expresses her love for her son and husband in her desire to protect him f rom this knowledge. She pleads with him to stop asking questions regarding the circumstances. Jocastas character is intelligent and capable, but not driven to exploration as Oedipus. She carries her own agenda about what should be known and looked into. Jocastas character is used by the gods, in a way, to test Oedipuss faith. After accusing Creon of conspiracy and treason, Oedipus relates to Jocasta the details of his meeting with Tiresias. Jocasta proceeds to plant doubts of the gods by telling Oedipus the story of the Delphian Oracle and the circumstances surrounding Laius death. Again, after Polybus death, she excitedly tells Oedipus that his prophecy was obviously untrue, though it was not, and by doing so she attempts to hint that the oracles and thus the gods are false. It can be drawn that Jocasta is forced to perform such tasks for the gods because she tried to avoid an earlier prophecy. By tying her childs feet together and casting him out, she attempted to defeat the gods, and this disbelief of course angered them. Her punishment, then, was to test the beliefs of the very child she cast out. Jocasta was, in this way, a victim. Though it was by her own doing that this penalty was cast upon her, it was not something she was happy to do, which becomes apparent when she realizes the truth in her earlier prophecy. It is at this moment that she becomes aware of her punishment, and in desperation kills herself. After the realization of the truth, Jocastas own panicked grief impels her to suicide. Jocasta is a victim in Oedipus Rex, but not as much as she is a catalyst for Oedipus own victimization. She keeps her faith throughout and tries to relieve Oedipus of his. Because of this, readers may in turn pity her and loathe her. But the gods tested the king of Thebes through her the main goal of the play and both he and she failed. In the exploration of Oedipus Rex, Death of a Salesman, and Macbeth the feminine characters obvious self-interest plays an important role in their counter parts downfalls. Jocasta, Linda, and Lady Macbeth are all similar in their dynamic nature, ability to enable, and their need to care for others. The previous exploration illustrates the female agenda in contrast to the tragic heroes.

Use of Photographs in This Is a Photograph of Me and Photograph, 1958 :: Photograph

Use of Photographs in This Is a Photograph of Me and Photograph, 1958  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   At first glance, "This Is a Photograph of Me" by Margaret Atwood and "Photograph, 1958" by Patricia Young are strikingly similar works in that both poems utilize the imagery of a photograph as a communication device however, upon closer examination   they differ markedly in the approach each poet takes in utilizing this same device.   The similarities between these two poems are immediately obvious to the reader; both poems are written by female poets,   both poems have the poet as the speaker,   both poems describe how the poet feels about herself, and both poems utilize the photograph as a device to convey their message to the reader.   Less obvious, is the differing approaches taken by each poet.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In the poem "This Is a Photograph of Me" by Margaret Atwood, the photograph is used by the poet as a device to directly communicate her message to the reader.  Ã‚   The title of the poem announces in a direct and forthright way that the poem will be a self examination.   The poem begins with Atwood directly and literally describing the photograph itself: "It was taken some time ago. / At first it seems to be / a smeared / print: blurred lines and grey flecks / blended with the paper."   The poet's use of words like "smeared", "blurred" and "blended" immediately and directly communicates to the reader that the poet feels unclear, directionless and without focus.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   After this opening stanza, the poet begins to describe the contents of the photograph: "then as you scan / it, you see in the left-hand corner / a thing that is like a branch: part of a tree" and "to the right, halfway up / what ought to be a gentle / slope, a small frame house."   Margaret Atwood is gradually drawing the reader inward, from the outside edge of the photograph towards the center of the photograph, the poem, and the poet herself.   This can be seen clearly on the following lines: "I am in the lake, in the center / of the picture, just under the surface."  Ã‚   The atmosphere created is one of introspection and self examination: "but if you look long enough, / eventually / you will be able to see me."   Atwood is using the device of the photograph to draw the reader from the outside world inwards to her world in the center of the photograph.

Oscar Wilde Constanly Mocks Victorian Society Essay

Act III offers happy resolution to the problems of identity and marriage that drive much of the humor in the previous acts. Wilde continues to mock the social customs and attitudes of the aristocratic class. He relentlessly attacks their values, views on marriage and respectability, sexual attitudes, and concern for stability in the social structure. Wilde attacks social behavior with the continuation of speeches by his characters that are the opposite of their actions. While Cecily and Gwendolen agree to keep a dignified silence, Gwendolen actually states that they will not be the first ones to speak to the men. In the very next line she says, â€Å"Mr. Worthing, I have something very particular to ask you.† Wilde seems to be saying that people speak as if they have strong opinions, but their actions do not support their words. If actions truly do speak louder than words, Wilde has made his point: Society, literally, speaks volumes, but the words are meaningless. Wilde continues his criticism of society’s valuing style over substance when Gwendolen says, â€Å"In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity is the vital thing.† Lady Bracknell discusses Algernon’s marriage assets in the same light. She says, â€Å"Algernon is an extremely, I may almost say an ostentatiously, eligible young man. He has nothing, but he looks everything. What more can one desire?† Indeed, in a society where looks are everything and substance is discounted, Algernon is the perfect husband. What else do aristocrats value? They seem to esteem the appearance of respectability. Respectability means children are born within the context of marriage. Wilde once again mocks the hypocrisy of the aristocrats who appear to value monogamy but pretend not to notice affairs. Jack’s speech to Miss Prism, whom he believes to be his mother, is humorous in both its indignant defense of marriage and also its mocking of the loudly touted religious reformer’s virtues of repentance and forgiveness. He says to Miss Prism, â€Å"Unmarried! I do not deny that is a serious blow†¦. Mother, I forgive you.† His words are all the more humorous when Miss Prism indignantly denies being his mother. It was not at all unusual for aristocrats to have children born out of wedlock, but society turned its head, pretended not to know about those children, and did not condemn their fathers. The gulf between the upper class and its servants is explored in the scenes with Merriman and Prism. When Lady Bracknell unexpectedly shows up at Jack’s, Merriman coughs discretely to warn the couples of her arrival. One can only imagine his humorous thoughts as he watches the wealthy tiptoe around each other and argue about what should be important. When Lady Bracknell hears the description of Prism and recognizes her as their former nanny, she calls for Miss Prism by shouting â€Å"Prism!† without using a title in front of her name. Imperiously, Lady Bracknell divides the servant from the lady of the manor. Wilde’s audience would recognize this behavior on the part of the servants and the upper class. The stuffy class distinctions defined the society in which they lived. In an age of social registers, Lady Bracknell laments that even the Court Guides have errors. In the next breath, she discusses bribing Gwendolen’s maid to find out what is happening in her daughter’s life. In Act III she also reveals that her aristocratic brother’s family entrusted their most precious possession — Jack — to a woman who is more interested in her handbag and manuscript than in what happens to the baby in her charge. Wilde seems to be questioning the values of a society that believes in social registers, hires other people to neglectfully watch its children, and uses bribery to keep track of the children who are not missing. The death of Bunbury gives Wilde the opportunity to speak of aristocratic fears and have some continued fun with the upper class’s lack of compassion about death. The 1885 Trafalgar Square riots brought on ruling-class fears of insurrection, anarchism and socialism. Wilde humorously touches on these fears when he allows Algernon to explain the explosion of Bunbury. Lady Bracknell, fearing the worst, exclaims, â€Å"Was he the victim of a revolutionary outrage? I was not aware that Mr. Bunbury was interested in social legislation. If so, he is well punished for his morbidity.† Evidently, to Lady Bracknell’s acquaintances, laws that protect the welfare of those less fortunate are strictly morbid subjects. In fact, this attitude seems to contradict the upper-class concern for reform. However, in reality, Wilde is confirming the upper-class definition of social reform: conforming to the status quo. In Act III Wilde makes a comment on the value of being homosexual with a veiled reference to Lady Lancing. When Lady Bracknell asserts that Cecily needs to have a more sophisticated hairstyle, she recommends â€Å"a thoroughly experienced French maid† who can make a great deal of change in a very short time. She explains that such a change happened to an acquaintance of hers, Lady Lancing, and that after three months â€Å"her own husband did not know her.† Jack uses the opportunity to make a pun on the word know, using it in an aside — a comment only the audience can hear. Jack interprets know to mean they no longer had sex, insinuating Lady Lancing’s preference for the French maid. He says, â€Å"And after six months nobody knew her,† indicating that the homosexual experience made a new woman of her. Although homosexuality would have been seen as immoral to Wilde’s audience, Jack indicates that being homosexual might be a good thing — almost as a social commentary — directly to the audience. It seems a double life is necessary after one is married, whether it be bunburying or the homosexual life Wilde was experiencing in an increasingly public way. Wilde continues his assault on family life in Act III by mentioning its strange qualities in several conversations. It appears rather strange, for example, that Lady Bracknell cannot even recall the Christian name of her brother-in-law, Algy’s father. Algernon’s father died before Algernon was one, so stranger yet is Algernon’s comment, â€Å"We were never even on speaking terms.† He gives that as the reason he cannot remember his father’s name. Further assaulting family life, Wilde has Lady Bracknell describe Lord Moncrieff as â€Å"eccentric† but excuses his behavior because it â€Å"was the result of the Indian climate, and marriage, and indigestions, and other things of that kind.† Marriage is lumped together with things such as indigestion. In explaining Lord Moncrieff’s marriage, Lady Bracknell says that he was â€Å"essentially a man of peace, except in his domestic life.† Her description invites suspicion that the local constabulary might have visited because of domestic disturbances. Family life and domestic bliss do not get high marks in Wilde’s estimation. When Miss Prism humorously resolves the problem of Jack’s lineage, Wilde takes his hero of unknown origins and paints him as the aristocrat who will now be assimilated into his rightful place in the social structure. Through the sad melodrama of Jack’s handbag parentage, Wilde exaggerates the Victorian clichà © of the poor foundling who makes good. As soon as Jack is known to be a member of the established aristocracy, a Moncrieff in fact, he is seen as an appropriate person for Gwendolen to marry. They will, according to Wilde, live happily ever after in wedded bliss and continue the aristocratic blindness to anything that truly matters. The tag line of the play, spoken by Jack, is a familiar convention in Victorian farces. In discovering that he has been telling the truth all along — his name is Ernest, and he has a brother — Jack makes fun of the Victorian virtues of sincerity and honesty and asks Gwendolen to forgive him for â€Å"speaking nothing but the truth.† He now realizes the importance of being the person he is supposed to be. Wilde is saying perhaps that a new kind of earnestness exists, one that is different from the virtues extolled by the Victorians. Maybe it is possible to be honest and understand what should be taken seriously in life rather than being deceptive, hypocritical, and superficial. Some readers believe, however, that the ending shows Jack mockingly redefining Victorian earnestness as just the opposite: a life of lies, pleasure and beauty. Critics debate the interpretation of the last line. A curious stage direction occurs in Act III, revealing the concern Wilde had for the staging of his play to compliment his ideas. As his couples come together and move apart, he emphasizes the choreography of the pairs. He has them speak in unison, both the women together and the men together. It matters not who they are; they are interchangeable. Marriage is simply an institution that is a gesture, like a christening. The unison speaking is very stylistic, not meant to be realistic at all. It reveals Wilde’s attitude that what is important in Victorian marriage — names — really should not be as important as other considerations. In the end, Wilde leaves his audience thinking about the trivial social conventions they deem important. Their Victorian virtues perhaps need redefining. Institutions such as marriage, religion, family values and money should perhaps have new interpretations. The character of people, rather than their names and family fortunes, should weigh most heavily when considering their worth. Wilde was able to use humor to skewer these attitudes and convince his audience about the importance of being earnest.

Matthew Harrison Brandy Essay

I am delighted to write to you this letter. I believe you are fine and ready to join me in celebrating the success of Matthew Harrison Brandy. Harrison with no doubt deserves kudos for this success. According to Genesis 1:1-3, God himself was and everything that became originated from Him. Thus God gives ability to all beings to be what He wants. Matthew argues that God did not give man mind to abandon his faith as Darwin did. Evidently in Genesis 3, Adam and Eve disobeyed God. In verses 5, the serpent lied to Adam that if they knew the truth, they would discover between good and evil (Milligan W. R, 1999). The individual mind of human should not be used as a tool to abandon the faith. Matthew gives an example of a sponge. He says, â€Å"Biblically a sponge would think if God allowed it to†. Yet still it ill not abandon its position unless it is displaced. This implies that all creatures made by God have the same privilege; they only differ on their purposes. Although Drummond uses Darwin’s theory of evaluation, it is clear that he does not cite the origin of creatures. His argument is biased since Darwin himself was a Christian believer became an atheist. This indicates that Darwin abandoned his orthodox Christian belief. It is true that revelations are given by God, and all living beings were created by the word of God as Brandy says in his argument. The created things multiplied there after as God commanded them. The argument of design cites back on a supreme intelligent being-God. He designed everything and they were good unto him (Milligan W. R, 1999). God had power to order creation of all things like water, heaven earth and other things. His intellect cannot be challenged. It is a great crime to make people believe in the law of evolution. sIt has flaws and confusions Darwin admit his guilt when he says that he lost direction after he abandoned his Christian faith. Fascinating observations from his thought became misleading. Darwin failed to give credit to God for creating all things. Matthew illustrates that man needed to have control in the garden Eden. In Darwinism he admits that man could not be trusted to make grand decisions. This implies he needed control which contradicts the theory of evolution. He further contradicts himself in explaining the origin of species. The wonderful universe could not be a result of blind chance. This is quite erroneous. Besides, how can man be a descendant of an ape? Man’s mind by no-means has no relation to a monkeys mind. After Adam and Eve had sinned, God gave them punishment. The same plague befell Darwin after he deviated from his orthodox faith. He therefore lost the voice of his conscience and reasoning. His spiritual and emotional aspects became weak. This made him have baseless philosophies. By having Henry support evolution, it is like he is insane. Only birds of the same feathers flock together. Matthew has no struggle to win the trial. In court, Henry looks sleepy and at one point he was told to wake up. Scientist offer sacrifice to their gods and this reveals a great deal of confusion and self destruction of life. Henry needs to believe in the supreme God. I am indeed happy that people will change and stand up to defend their belief that God is the creator of all things. Unthinkable conformity and censorship should be avoided for as a man thinks, so he is. Work cited Milligan W. R. The holy bible: new and old testaments. London: king James, 1999.