Business - Affirmative Action Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Business - Affirmative Action - Research Paper Example It is an act to increase the representation of minority by giving them preference on the basis of gender, color, origin, sexual orientation etc. Moreover, this act is also done to increase the participation of the under representative part of the society to showcase what they are capable of. Historical Background: General Background History The term ‘affirmative action’ was first used in 1935 in a National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.  §Ã‚ §151–169). The usage for it was not for race but to provide remedy for employers to avoid discrimination of union members. However, in books the origin of this term was mentioned to root from the United States. During the presidency of John F. Kennedy, it first appeared in Executive Order 10925 and it was signed by the President on March 6th 1961 (Jain and Ratnam). It was used to refer to methods used to achieve non-discrimination policy implementation. In 1965, Executive Order 11246 was issued by the President Lyndon Johnso n which stated that federal contractors should use affirmative action to avoid discrimination while employing a person. Hiring should be made irrespective of race, religion and national origin. The 1964 Civil Rights Act implemented this clause that no race discrimination by statute should be carried at the workplace. Title II of 1964 act stopped places which were public, such as restaurants or hotels from discriminating on the basis of race. Gradually in 1968, gender was also added to the list. Purpose of Affirmative Action Since the Civil Rights Movement, much has been changed in a positive manner and a great contribution to it was the introduction of Affirmative action. This attempt was to achieve a better and more equal society. It was started as a ‘Corrective measure for societal and governmental discriminations against groups that have been at a disadvantage and subject to prejudices’. However, much has changed since its inception. Supporters of Affirmative Actionà ‚   There are many people, organizations and societies supporting the inherent goodness of affirmative action. Some of them are given below: According to a report published in 2007 by Pew Research Center, support for affirmative action in the American public has increased to 70% in 2007 compared to 58% in 1995. The US Military is another endorser of affirmative action. In 2003, many high ranking officers of Army, Navy, Air force and Marine Corps planned a rally in support of affirmative action for a Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger. The fortune 500 companies have been a popular endorser of affirmative action. More than 60 leading companies in fortune 500 which encompasses 3M, GE, HP, Kraft Foods, Coca-Cola came out for the support of affirmative action in 2003. Universities have been a popular supporter of affirmative action. Harvard University, University of Chicago, University of Pennsylvania, Yale University and Dartmouth College provided their support for race-conscious a dmission programs. They wanted to promote diversity in all forms and, therefore, in 2003 they showed their popular support for it. Popular athletes are endorsers of affirmative action. Many of the Michigan’s leading sports athlete including Tom Izzo (Michigan State University), Joanne P. McCallie (Michigan State University), Tommy Amaker (University of Michigan) and Ernie Zeigler (Central Michigan University) spoke about the importance of affirmative ac

Economic Urban Renewal Essay Example for Free

Economic Urban Renewal Essay During Urban renewal, what is in the best interest of the city is sometimes not in the best interest of many people in the City. And what is in the interest of the People is often not in the best interest of the City. Cities, or their disparate parts at varying rates, are always in one natural state of evolution or another: decline or renewal. Community organizations and individuals who have no expertise or experience in modern urban design and renewal have no place influencing the renewal agenda from an official capacity any more than a lawyer should be telling a doctor how to do neurosurgery on a sick patient. Urban Renewal and Design is a challenging and daunting endeavor even for the experts. Modern Renewal does not appease or allow a sense of entitlement by amateurs to meddle in the process from appointed political positions. Community groups with a sophisticated culture of urban economics and design should be invited into the process. A good example of this type of community group is the Design Advocacy Group in Philadelphia. Urban renewal is not a social welfare program. Social programs are already abundantly in existence for the needy in every City. Urban Renewal programs are special events. Urban Renewal programs co-opted by social activists will fail. Social programs masquerading as Renewal will eventually be exposed for what they are, with negative ramifications to follow, possibly inhibiting consideration of another renewal try any time in the foreseeable future. The same goes for political and institutional pork barrel projects masquerading as Renewal or Economic Recovery projects. Usually, the make up of the renewal board itself is a strong predictor of its direction, whether its makeup is weighted in favor of social community activists, politicians or known political cronies, representatives of major city institutions by proxy, or outside experts with no current or previous political or business ties to the region, no local constituency to appease, and with no continuing participation after achieving benchmarks. Even a so-called balanced board, that is, one that gives a seat to a representative of each of the citys major constituent groups, such as the major ethnic, political, business, religious, housing, social categories etc. may be cause for suspicion. These type of boards are mainly constituted to see that each gets its share of the pie, proclaiming unity while each pursues their own vision, going in separate directions while protecting their turf. A balanced board tends to neutralize, diminish and dilute the effectiveness of good plans in the compromising process of wheeling and dealing between groups. A balanced board that provides seats of influence to entitled non-experts is bound to fail. Body Urban renewal programs are historically almost orgiastic opportunities of cronyism and pork barrel corruption. Citizens, the Law and the Press must apply the highest scrutiny. Urban renewal is not a social experiment but a pro-business, free market enabler that attracts new businesses and residents, facilitated by physical redesign. Incentives intended to attract business into a renewal zone that contain local hiring requirements will find limited appeal, since the overwhelming majority of businesses want to be free to hire People based on their qualifications rather than their address. Urbanists recognize that individual economic and residential decisions are based on self-interest, and that successful renewal depends on the cumulative effect of thousands of individual decisions. Cities where community activists have a reputation for strong-arming new businesses will have a difficult time of renewal. The existing state of the City asks at any given moment, Why would anyone choose to live or operate a business here when they have the option to choose another locale? The City may ask the question, but only outside stakeholders can answer it. Urbanists need to identify outside stakeholders and get an accurate picture of what it will take for them to move into the City. Renewal planners must constantly adjust their plans to appease stakeholders outside the City as information suggests. Urban renewal is the removing of blight and creating high density, safe attractive walkable new neighborhoods and shopping districts through policy and design. It is for the immediate benefit of middle and upper class business owners and individuals who will settle and create a sufficient tax base to provide services in the future for all residents. These are shoppers, business owners and residents who do not yet have any presence in the City. In other words, present City residents and businesses must bite the bullet and make sacrifices for current outsiders to accrue future benefits. Every move in this direction speeds up the renewal process. The immediate target constituency for urban renewal programs lay outside the City, not in it. Todays residents will receive future benefits through others that cannot come to fruition any other way. Territorial attitudes and a sense of entitlement that attempt to keep outsiders at bay and keep benefits in will generate no benefits and further isolate Inner City poor from mainstream opportunities. Urban renewal efforts influenced by social service and affordable housing providers will come to resemble a social service program and be a complete turn-off to the regions middle and upper class. Renewal leaders who as politicians had a history of applying short term patches to long term problems, or who have a prior or newly established business relationship with large institutional beneficiaries of renewal funds, will find it hard to build trust with skeptical stakeholders, especially prominent business People with honed analytical skills. The history, business and political ties of Renewal leaders will play a large role as to informing stakeholders’ decisions. Without attracting a viable upper class from the region urban renewal is dead. Often used specious arguments by community activists such as we stayed and stood by the City during its hard times, now we deserve something†¦ is a thinly disguised parasitic, something for nothing attitude. People do not hesitate to move to a better neighborhood when they can. Renewal leaders who succumb to this victimology do the City and its good people a disservice while repelling desirable potential inhabitants. While large historical forces have shaped the American ghetto, this is the context in which some must deal with their problems, not an excuse for failure or benefits beyond the social sector. Life can be hard and harder for some, but Urban Renewal funds are not to be used as welfare funds or for public housing. That is what the local housing and welfare boards, with their separate and historical funding sources are for. Church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued (McAteer, 1975). No matter how many People attend church or work hard in some cites, it is a lack of architectural cohesion, wasted space in the form of parking lots and vacant lots, vandalism and other property crimes, burglary and thefts, the preponderance of illegal drug markets, violence, blight, rampant anti-social behaviors, tacky shoddy retail shops, gangs, unruly teenagers, school violence, illegitimacy and lack of a skilled and employable populace that creates the profile of a worst case inner City needing attention. These problems in turn lead to a lack of economic and social capital. Churches are valuable institutions in their historical role as spiritual guides, facilitators of personal transformation and, in urban areas, the delivery of social services. Serious Urbanists must ferret out the challenges of a city, divide them between the predictable and fixable (design) and the theoretical (social) and work on them separately, considering the two processes operate on wholly different timelines and practices. Social challenges, whose solutions are purely theoretical with no predictable outcome based on past history, are on a timeline of 20 years ( one generation) to infinity, ( or never, since poverty and its associated pathologies have been in existence on this planet since the beginning of mankind, despite the best intentions of policy makers throughout history. Urbanists should work on what is known and doable within the allotted time, and not engage in risky experimentation that may ruin a window of opportunity, leaving the larger social problems, those beyond which soundly designed built environments can positively effectuate to social theorists. Urban design and physical development is a proven methodology of urban change within a specified period. Desirable outside stakeholders are, almost by definition not in need of church social services. Therefore, churches should be considered in the social and theoretical People side of the renewal equation. Urbanists must be careful to avoid The Seattle Process, that is, the civic inclination to seek so much public input and consider so many sides of an argument that nothing actually gets done. A good Urbanist begins an operation with the same singular confidence of a surgeon opening a patient’s chest. Like a good doctor, a good Urbanist persuades a patient as to what is necessary for health, does not let the patient write his own prescriptions, and gains the patients trust and cooperation for the patients own good. Church organizations often become a default local government in dysfunctional cities, securing government and philanthropic contracts and fees to provide social services. Rather than being content with the compensation and intrinsic rewards for doing good works, when renewal funds become available, churches often subsume renewal efforts into their mission, demanding a cut of the economic pie, a seat at the political table, and influence to engineer social outcomes through shaky experimental theories. Too often opportunistic ministers, both storefront and traditional, subordinate their historical role to become real estate developers in the profitable non-profit housing industry. Successful at supplanting market oriented Licensed Planners in master-planning neighborhoods, whole areas are taken off the market and are assigned for low-income housing development and rehabilitation to benefit owners and tenants who cannot afford or dont maintain their properties. This does not correct the underlying problem, the inability of poor residents to maintain their properties, and resets to the beginning the deterioration cycle, which leads inevitably to another tax payer bailout. Churches also attempt to insert themselves as the moral arbiters of what the City should be, conflicting with equally legitimate visions of other stakeholders. Urbanist should not mediate the competing visions of others, but should know what the course of action is and concentrate on their own vision. Urbanist must take command of the situation. Only church organizations that understand the economics and design necessary to attract outsiders into the City should be part of the renewal team. No more than one, if any, church seat on the board should be allowed, which represents the aggregate voice of the City religious institutions, and only those institutions that understand outside stakeholder interests. This is a concept familiar to all People of faith and can contribute to renewal success. The board presence and influence of City churches without any renewal expertise beyond low-income housing services should be as limited as their experience. Urban renewal is difficult enough without allowing fake experts on board. A healthy adversarial relationship between social activists and Urbanists should be acknowledged. The basis for this differentiation is the recognition that the City also consists of buildings, streets, infrastructure, related public services and utilities such as street and sewer service, architecture, physical neighborhood design cohesion and allure, special districts, location and transportation assets, zoning laws, tax assessment considerations, finance, business attraction strategies, public relations, marketing activities and more that are far and away outside the purview and expertise of social scientists subsidized housing activists and theorists. The best organizational chart would group these varied disciplines into appropriate categories receiving specialized representation into People (Social) and City (Renewal). Let the chips fall where they may. Ubiquitous poverty is repellent to members of the Middle and Upper Class. To find themselves surrounded by poverty and blight is their worst nightmare. Urbanists must avoid including any plans or designs that provide or support poverty programs. This should be left to the social activists. Urbanists should not over-reach and attempt to do more than they are qualified for or have the resources to do, especially when duplicating existing organizations servicing that need. Urbanists should refrain from incorporating fuzzy social goals or any other programs that rely on rosy predictions that are hard to objectively justify. Whenever possible, Urbanists should present appropriately analogous models to support their position. Unlike Social Theory, which has applied uncountable programs, ideas and billions of dollars to distressed urban cores, the great majority of which have failed, it has been proven that graphic urban design codes serve as predictable guides for change. Intrusive blight and poverty, and its associated social pathologies are the overwhelming reason Isolated City renewal efforts fail. Isolated City in this context can be defined as a City that has no existing viable and attractive residential, commercial or arts areas to build out from. Isolated Cities are the least likely to have a successful renewal and must pull out all the stops in areas of design and incentives to attract outside stakeholders (Lees, 1985). Regional poor move to areas that have a culture of the poor, where they feel less stigmatized and self-conscious, and can find and bond comfortably with others in familiar situations. The abundance of support services for the poor further encourages settlement. Above all, poor people gravitate to areas where they can afford to live, bringing with them all the psychological and social pathologies of such a tough and sad existence. Concentrations of poverty also are, to a great degree, the end result of old racist traditions, expressed in public policies and business practices decades earlier. Zoning laws, and the open discriminatory practice of suburban real estate agents refusing to sell to minorities, post WWII through the 1970s, established the present ethnic and socio-economic configuration of urban areas and suburbs. This law contains loopholes for developers and communities with an anti low income housing bias. In light of history and current practices, a solid argument can be made for compensation to certain classes and groups who have inherited the terrible ramifications of this process. However, Renewal Funds and plans are an inappropriate source. No Urban Renewal effort has ever received enough funding to do as much as is needed, and cannot take on the added burden of compensating for societys misdeeds. Failed urban renewal cycles are more the rule than the exception, and the heavy and counter-productive hand of poverty services has played a major part in their failures. In some cities however, with every cycle they have become more expert in inserting themselves into the mix. With such limited vision partners unschooled in economics as gate-keepers, it is no wonder that the full complexity, serendipity and dynamics of market forces, investors, individual visions, entrepreneurial endeavors and regional participation rarely gets a shot at involvement before the renewal steam runs out. Social activists truly committed to helping the urban poor should consider helping them relocate out of distressed cities and into settings more conducive to pursuing life, liberty and happiness. Where life is risky, and crime reduces liberty, pursuit of happiness is severely hampered. It is time to form a moral argument free of bile and acrimony and take it to the outlying regions that owe their lifestyles to regional social problem repositories in urban areas. If troubled cities are to make a comeback, the outward migration of urban poor must begin, coinciding with an inflow of self-reliant urban pioneers. Nothing less than a 1960s style movement in scope and argument will do. Considering the historic resistance to minorities and the poor in the suburbs, the argument should be taken to suburban churches first. Presented with a compelling and irrefutable moral argument, these churches must accept it or reveal a moral, ethical and religious hypocrisy. Here, urban community development activists and church organizations have an important role. In a best case scenario, the suburban churches will spearhead the drive for the end of segregation and integration into their neighborhoods (Davis, 2000). Urbanites in communities with strong values should not fear their values will be overpowered by the pathologies of poverty, but instead will be a powerful influence for good to all who are exposed to them. Any City with a publicly assisted populace of more than 20% must create programs to promote an outflow to the suburbs to have any chance of renewal. Cities can begin by freezing growth of the poverty service industry. Inner City residents who move to stable communities can immediately enjoy the benefits of mainstream American life and its opportunities for building social capital, instead of waiting and taking the risk that renewal benefits, years off into the future, may not materialize at all. Minorities can be assured that modern day discrimination is relatively weak, and is based more on behavior than race. No City can accomplish operational self-sufficiency with a subsidized population exceeding 20%. Courts and legislative bodies recognize the deleterious and burdensome effects of a low income housing market above 20%, by capping obligations at this point. The questionable history of subsidized housings premier programs and experienced practitioners should be enough to scare off Urbanists from getting caught up in it. HUD program known as Section 108 which allows block-grant communities to raise money for loans by floating HUD-backed notes, has a staggering 59 percent default rate. Although government programs are expected to make riskier bets than private banks (whose loan-default rates are typically in the low single digits), the stratospheric failure rate of HUD loans amounts to a squandering of millions of taxpayer dollars, since taxpayers are on the hook for these loan guarantees. It is a rare suburb that has a subsidized housing population approaching anywhere near 20%. The higher a Citys low income housing stock, the less the area appeals to potential newcomers who do not depend on public assistance. Helping as many poor to move out of the City and into better neighborhoods is an important social mission that should endure through all times. It is a mission separate from Urban renewal and should not be commingled.

Blood And Human Sacrifice For Mesoamerican Indians Theology Religion Essay

Blood And Human Sacrifice For Mesoamerican Indians Theology Religion Essay While it may not have always been clear why blood was a necessity for humans to survive, it was always worshiped unlike anything else. Practically every tribe and civilization throughout Mesoamerican history has participated in some sort of blood or human sacrifice. Even though each group of people may have had very different beliefs and even different rituals, blood was central part in many ceremonies. Nevertheless, the extent to which blood had been used was extremely different. While some civilizations sacrificed thousands of humans, some only participated in animals sacrifices, and others had no sacrifices at all. Blood ceremonies happened for a number of various reasons, anything from a coming of age, to the induction of a new king, to the construction of a new temple. Most often sacrifices were made to appease the gods, as a sign of piety and could be performed by anyone from a lowly servant to a king. While the Aztec, the Maya, and the Kuna were all very different people livin g at different times in Mesoamerica with entirely different ceremonies and beliefs, all used blood as an integral part in many of their rituals. The Aztecs, also known as the Mexicas, were a group of culturally united people that mostly spoke Nahuatl and lived and ruled in Central Mexico during the fourteen to sixteenth centuries. They ruled from a large city called Tenochtitlan, which is now the present-day location of Mexico City. Out of all of the Mesoamerican civilizations, the Aztecs had the most prolific blood rituals and human sacrifices. They especially thought it was important to sacrifice humans, at least once a month so that they could appease the gods and bring good luck to their land. However, researchers have found that human sacrifices in the Aztec empire were done much more often than once a month. Even many of the Aztec myths surround human sacrifice. The Legend of the Five Suns attempts to explain the formation of all of the gods and why there is a need for human sacrifices all in a single story. It begins with the god Ometeotl creating four sons who would be the four cardinal directions and who would also c reate all other gods that the Aztecs worshipped. These four gods created people and when they did they had to create a god that would serve as the sun as well. Unfortunately the gods that would be created for the sun were not be perfect and kept fighting and the sun god kept changing which kept killing all of the people on earth. Finally Quetzalcoatl decided that he would not let the people that he created be destroyed so he went to the underworld to steal their bones and resurrect them. At the same time created for them a new sun called Huitzilopochtli. This is the sun that the Aztecs believed was in the sky over their heads. They also thought that every time it turned dark Coyolxauhqui, the goddess of the moon, and the stars were fighting with Huitzilopochtli to try to take his spot. In Tenochtitlan: Capital of the Aztec Empire Jose Luis de Rojas emphasizes the conclusion of the myth: The myth dramatizes the triumph of the sun over the moon and the stars when it rises each day (pg . 16). Additionally, the human sacrifices performed by the Aztecs were supposed to help give Huitzilopochtli the strength to fight back and to rise again each morning. In The Aztecs: New Perspectives Dirk R. Van Turenhout explains the importance of sacrifices: The Aztecs shared with other Mesoamerican peoples the belief that sacrifice to gods was necessary to ensure the continued existence of the universe (pg 188). Without human sacrifices there could be no life sustained on earth. Even the founding of Tenochtitlan is a legend based on the human sacrifice of a princess. It is said that when the Mexica, or the Aztecs, first came to Central Mexico they were forced to settle in Chapultepec, a region with very poor resources and living conditions. Here they fell under the rule of another city called Culhuacan whose rulers were said to be descendants of the Toltecs. After the Mexica city helped Culhuacan defeat an enemy the King of Culhuacan gave away his daughter for marriage to one the Mexica leaders. Unfortunately when he arrived for the marriage ceremony to Chapultepec, to his disbelief he saw one of the Mexica priests wearing his daughters skin over his head. Upon being questioned the priest explained that their god, Huitzilopochtli asked for them to sacrifice the princess. Outraged the King forced all of the Mexica off of the land. They wandered aimlessly for weeks searching for a place to settle when Huitzilopochtli came down from the heavens and told them to settle down when they see an eagle perched on a cactus killing a snake. They came across this scene in the middle of a marshland and there founded their soon to be great capital of Tenochtitlan. Just like this one many of the Aztec myths are based on human sacrifice, or at least have human sacrifice, demonstrating how important of a ritual it was in their lives. For the Aztecs most of the human sacrifices were performed by a set of five or six priests. The victim would be dragged up the stairs to the top of the temple where a few of the priests would hold him down on a stone slab and one priest would make an incision in the victims abdomen with a flint knife. He would then reach in and quickly pull out the still beating heart for all to see. The heart would then be placed in a bowl which would be offered to the gods and the body would be pushed down the stairs. Meanwhile all of the spectators were expected to perform some sort of bloodletting ritual themselves. While this was the most standard form of human sacrifice each god had a specific sacrificial ritual that had to have been followed. In the Handbook to Life in the Aztec World Manuel Aguilar-Moreno describes the different human sacrifice rituals of the Aztecs: Types of sacrifices included extraction of the heart, decapitation, dismemberment, drowning, or piercing by arrows, to name some examples. Instruments of choice included, but were not limited to, a techcatl, which was a sacrificial stone; a cuaubxicalli, a container to hold hearts; a teepatl (flint knife), which was used to stab the subject (pg. 154). The Aztecs used the most elaborate ways they could think of to kill their victims in order to show their obedience and respect to the gods. The Aztecs performed the most gruesome and grotesque human sacrifice rituals in Mesoamerica. Out of all neighboring civilizations the Aztecs held the largest human sacrifices and in recent times researchers have speculated about the causes of these mass sacrifices. They have come up with a number of reasons, though the most important three seem to be religious, political, and ecological. The Aztecs seemed to believe that sacrificing humans to the specific gods would bring them anything that they wanted, from a season of good rain, to a well-built temple, to a victory against an enemy. If things were not going the way they were planned it was often thought that the particular god was not pleased with the sacrifice so more would have to be made. For example when building the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan the Aztecs sacrificed more than eighty thousand prisoners, approximately ten per minute during the four day building process. Many of the sacrifices could have had more backing by political reasons though. In The Aztecs: New Perspectives Dirk R. Van Turenhout writes: Modern sc holars of Aztec religion are convinced that the frequency with which these sacrifices occurred had the additional aspect of propaganda (pg. 190). It is believed that the Kings would sacrifice as many people as possible to demonstrate their strength and influence as well as make sure that all of the servants obey. The Aztecs held a lot of land at their peak that was occupied by people who were not Aztec descendants so they had to be kept in line; the thousands of human sacrifices could have been the annual tributes that these villages each had to pay to stay protected by the Aztec empire. Not only did this have a strong effect on the people living in the civilization it could also have been an intimidation factor for the civilizations around. In his book, City of Sacrifice: The Aztec Empire and the Role of Violence in Civilization, David Carrasco explains the role of the sacrifices in instilling fear in the surrounding populations; The ritual extravaganza was carried out with maximum theatrical tension, paraphernalia, and terror in order to amaze and intimidate the visiting dignitaries who returned to their kingdoms trembling with fear and convinced that cooperation and not rebellion was the best response to Aztec imperialism (pg. 75). Some even think that the numbers of sacrificed could be much lower than is believed and reported by the Aztecs because the number of deaths were inflated to scare their enemies. The Mayans were a very advanced civilization living on the Yucatan peninsula in Mesoamerica starting during the pre-classic period and reaching its peak between 250 and 900 AD. The Maya were a very progressive civilization for their time having creating a written language as well as mathematical and astrological systems. Unlike the Aztecs, the Mayan people were not as inclined to participate in human sacrifices, yet they often had blood rituals. The Mayans had a large number of religious festivals and rituals throughout their calendar year but as researchers have found none included the sacrifices of humans. The festivals based off of the calendar had a few animal sacrifices and most importantly all had some sort of bloodletting ceremony. These bloodletting rituals could be performed by practically anyone, such as a young boy or a servant male but for the large gatherings it would be the king or the priests preforming public bloodletting. In Handbook To Life In The Ancient Maya World Lynn Vasco Foster explains the importance of bloodletting in Maya culture: Despite the pain, the Maya elite carried out bloodletting rituals for a variety of purposes. They believed they could traverse cosmic boundaries in bloodletting rituals, and Maya rulers could contact deities and ancestors (pg 191). The bloodletting would be done by sticking a barbed rod through the tongue, ear, or foreskin and blood would be collected on a piece of parchment and then burned for the gods. The foreskin or the vagina was the most common places where blood would be taken from because of the great significance of these body parts. For obvious reasons the blood from these locations was considered to have fertile qualities and was used in ceremonies concerned with the plant life and the growing of crops. One of the most important reasons for bloodletting and any blood ritual was to see the Vision Serpent. The serpent was by far the most important social and religious symbol for the Mayans and the Vision Serpent was the most important of all serpents. Often the purpose of the bloodletting was to contact and communicate a deceased relative or a god. During a successful bloodletting the participants would see the Vision Serpent and out of its mouth would form the head of the god or ancestor they are contacting. The Vision Serpent was a direct link for the Mayan people from the physical world to the spiritual world. In Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization Arthur Andrew Demarest mentions the importance of bloodletting in art: The importance of bloodletting is confirmed by archeological evidence, as well as iconographic representations and carved texts (pg 188). One of the most famous depictions of bloodletting from the Mayans is found on a limestone carving called Lintel 24 which was discovered in Yaxchilan by a British archeologist named Alfred Maudslay in 1882. This lintel depicts the ruler Shield Jaguar holding a torch while Lady Xoc pulls a rope with shards on it through her tongue to produce the vision serpent. The hieroglyphs state that the carving dates back to the 28th of October 709 and also give the names of the two represented. Depictions like these were popular in Mayan civilizations and adorned many tombs demonstrating the importance of these rituals. Though according to records the Mayan people rarely had human sacrifices during the calendar festivals, they may not have been as innocent as the Spanish conquistadors thought. During excavations of various pyramids and other influential sites bodies were found that told a very different story. The Mayans were a very aggressive civilization and often participated in war, even with other Mayan groups. When this would occur any prisoners that would be taken would usually be sacrificed in grandiose celebrations. In The Ancient Maya Sylvanus Griswold Morley explains the importance of these rituals: These sacrifices were apparently essential to the sanctifying of important rituals, such as the inauguration of a new ruler, the designation of a new heir to the throne, or the dedication of a new building (pg. 543). These sacrifices were a way to induct a new king or simply show how powerful and successful a current king was. Often after a king died, his son would not be allowed to rule until he brought back prisoners from an enemy tribe and sacrificed them. If during this escapade he would be murdered himself, that would be his fate and the next in line for the thrown would have to do what he failed to accomplish. While both the Aztecs and the Maya had very elaborate blood rituals, both were very different. The Mayans only used human sacrifice as a way to demonstrate that a King was worthy of ruling the city, otherwise for the most part human sacrifices were shunned. While the Aztecs would sacrifice thousands to ask the gods to help them construct a great pyramid the Mayan people chose to sacrifice animals instead. In comparison with the neighboring civilizations of the same magnitude the Mayan people can be considered to have had very mild blood rituals. Unlike the Mayan and Aztec decedents, the Kuna tribes of today still participate in the same, or at least very similar, blood rituals as they had before the Spanish invasion. The Kuna people live in villages in present day Panama and off of the coast on the San Blas Islands. A significant difference between the Kuna and most other Mesoamerican tribes and civilizations is the great emphasis that they put on women in their society. The Kuna are matriarchal and women are held as the ultimate symbol, participating in many tribal decisions and gatherings that would in most other cases be solely for males. Similarly, most ceremonies are centered around women and in a few of them blood plays a substantial role. The inna tunsikkalet ceremony is the second largest ceremony that revolves around Kuna women. This is a two day puberty ceremony which is this first in a series of coming of age rituals and is very similar to the inna suid rite, or the hair cutting ritual, that is held later once the girl is ready to be married. Unlike many other Kuna rituals, the inna tunsikkalet is a family and household event (280, The Art of Being Kuna). During this time the young girls are isolated from the rest of the community and are not allowed to touch the ground with their feet and have to be carried if they need to leave their room for whatever reason. During this ceremony it is believed by the Kuna that the young girls are getting rid of all of the bad in their bodies through this blood. They are expelling any evil spirits from their bodies through the flow of blood. A few months after the Kuna girls have been secluded from all others and have finished their first menstruation the girls family sponsors a collective drinking bout (280, The Art of Being Kuna) during which the girls are again isolated. This time they are put in a surba, or a small, rectangular, wooden enclosure where they are painted in a black dye from the genipa fruit. Alexander Moore writes that after they have com pleted their rite the pubescent girls, then, have emerged in this modern community as the paramount symbol of community life (276, The Art of Being Kuna). In comparison with the Maya and the Aztec the Kuna did not participate in any animal sacrifices nor did they see it necessary to sacrifice humans to appease the gods. The use of blood in their ceremonies was purely symbolic and was not forced out of the body in any way. Unlike the other people of Mesoamerica the Kuna did not see a need to feel pain or show penance during their blood rituals and in this way can be considered a more advanced and civilized tribe of their time. The differences between the Kuna and the other people of Mesoamerica can be attributed to the small communities that never fought, but also were never conquered. They never saw any gruesome battles or bloodshed and for the most part have been a peaceful tribe. For this reason many of their blood ceremonies and rituals are not as extreme as the Aztec or Mayan sacrifices. Yet blood was still an all important part of their lives, without it there would be no inna tunsikkalet, or puberty rite. Blood played an integral part in just about every civilization and tribe throughout Mesoamerican history. Though, this doesnt come as a surprise; blood ceremonies, in some way, have been a part of practically every single culture from the beginning of time until the present. From the enormous, public gladiator battles and executions in the Coliseum during time of the Roman Empire in the 70 AD to the symbolic drinking of Christs blood during the Eucharist under Christian theology in todays world, blood has and will always play an important role. While human sacrifices have long been gone from our world, some religions, such as the Santeria, still participate in animal sacrifices as a way of healing. One of the possible explanations for the importance of blood in so many different cultures and societies over such a long period of time is that blood is practically the same in just about everyone. Whether one was a Mayan king or a humble servant he still had blood that flowed in exactly the same way. Anyone who wanted could participate in these blood rituals and show their piety to the gods, even if it did not mean a public ceremony. Blood is also universal, every single person who has ever walked this earth had blood flow through their veins. For this reason it is safe to assume that most people were aware of it and for most it was something of a mystery, something that could mean the difference between life and death, something that could be worshipped. Whether it is for religious, cultural, or medical reasons, blood will always play a significant role in our lives. Blood is as important as air, water, or food, without it we would not survive.

The Constitution :: American America History

The Constitution A case for the connection of America's colonial and revolutionary religious and political experiences to the basic principles of the Constitution can be readily made. One point in favor of this conclusion is the fact that most Americans at that time had little beside their experiences on which to base their political ideas. This is due to the lack of advanced schooling among common Americans at that time. Other points also concur with the main idea and make the theory of the connection plausible. Much evidence to support this claim can be found in the wording of the Constitution itself. Even the Preamble has an important idea that arose from the Revolutionary period. The first line of the Preamble states, We the People of the United States... ." This implies that the new government that was being formed derived its sovereignty from the people, which would serve to prevent it from becoming corrupt and disinterested in the people, as the framers believed Britain's government had become. If the Bill of Rights is considered, more supporting ideas become evident. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom could have been influenced by the colonial tradition of relative religious freedom. This tradition was clear even in the early colonies, like Plymouth, which was formed by Puritan dissenters from England seeking religious freedom. Roger Williams, the proprietor of Rhode Island, probably made an even larger contribution to this tradition by advocating and allowing comple te religious freedom. William Penn also contributed to this idea in Pennsylvania, where the Quakers were tolerant of other denominations. In addition to the tradition of religious tolerance in the colonies, there was a tradition of self-government and popular involvement in government. Nearly every colony had a government with elected representatives in a legislature, which usually made laws largely without interference from Parliament or the king. Jamestown, the earliest of the colonies, had an assembly, the House of Burgesses, which was elected by the property owners of the colony. Maryland developed a system of government much like Britain's, with a representative assembly, the House of Delegates, and the governor sharing power. The Puritan colony in Massachusetts originally had a government similar to a corporate board of directors with the first eight stockholders, called freemen" holding power. Later, the definition of freemen" grew to include all male citizens, and the people were given a strong voice in their own government.

Discipline by spanking your children is not Abuse Essay

In an ideal world, spanking would never be necessary. However, on rare occasions it may be necessary to smack your child’s bottom. I do not intend to either promote or discourage spanking, but rather to give parents correct instruction on using non-abusive spanking in discipline. Spanking is a much-debated topic. Most child psychologists do not recommend spanking as a discipline method for children. However, other psychologists and many parents will tell you that a spanking given with fairness, love and care is an effective discipline technique. A child’s parent’s best make the decision as to the usefulness of spanking. It is gravely unfortunate that, there are many children who are abused under the guise of spanking, and this essay is an attempt to inform parents in a way that would prevent abuse. Never spank any place other than the child’s clothed bottom and only with your open hand. Spanking should generally be carried out in private. The aim of the punishment is to teach the child that they have done wrong, not to humiliate him/her. Many people believe that while privacy is important, if in a public place, you should not hesitate to take your child to an area where diners or shoppers will not be bothered and carry out the promised discipline. Privacy is secondary to setting clear rules and your child’s understanding that discipline will be sure (and swift). Further, if you are disciplining in loving and fair manner, you should not be concerned about onlookers and what they might think. This is your child, your responsibility and a swat on the bottom, not a public debate. Give your children clear boundaries. Knowing exactly what they can and cannot do is the foundation of happy and successful children that are honest and respectful of their parents, other adul ts and themselves. Learn which behaviors deserve a spanking. This really can be boiled down to one thing, open disobedience. You must be fair with children. Spilling things, toddler tantrums, nose-picking, bed-wetting, arguing, even lying and stealing are normal childhood behaviors that, while they may require action on the part of the  parent to help a child mature, they are not spanking offenses. You must let toddlers, children, teens and young adults make mistakes and have normal childhood behavior that is age appropriate without making them miserable about it. Any spanking should be meant to get their attention and establish your authority. Never spank them hard enough that they are going to feel it later. Always spank the child only on the child’s clothed bottom and only with your open hand. Cool off first. If you are angry, do not attempt to give your child a spanking. Tell them you need to think about this for a while and let yourself cool off and then re-evaluate the situation. Do not hit your child with implements or objects. Using belts, switches, spoons, paddles or worse on your child will never build the kind of respect and love that a properly administered spanking will. Only use your open hand on the child’s clothed bottom. Know when to enforce discipline with spanking. Once children are old enough to understand â€Å"no,† they are old enough for a spanking. This could occur as early as approximately 18 months, but varies by child. Be mindful that the force and amount of spanks should be reduced (i.e. a quick pat on the bottom) for very small children but the framework should be similar. If properly used, once a child has reached the age of 6 or 7, spanking will hopefully never be necessary again. On the other hand, if you have never spanked and a child is already 9 or 10, it is probably too late to begin once the patterns of parenting have been so firmly established. Do not spank too frequently. Again, spanking should be reserved only due to open disobedience, and not used whenever one feels annoyed. If you do it all the time, it will lose any effectiveness that it might have and is just plain mean. Give them one warning. If you think that you were not clear the first time, you might have to clarify, but do not give warning after warning and expect any child to be compliant. They will always know that they can push and push and have their way once you give up. The child must clearly understand that there will be one warning and that’s it. If you do this, they will obey after one warning, if you give them ten warnings, they will probably never take you seriously. But please, you must take great care when disciplining your child, be fair, be clear and make sure that you understand what is going on; you should not turn back once you have declared â€Å"you’ve just earned yourself a spanking†. Earn the respect of your child by being fair; you must also convince your children that if they are openly disobedient, the discipline will be quick and certain. In this way, they will learn the clear boundaries and seek to not overstep them to earn your trust. Do the following once you have decided that you must spank your child. Tell them that they are going to be spanked. Take them to a neutral area. If in the home, it should be out of sight of the other children. If at a restaurant or store, please wait until you get home. Never spank in a public place. You never want to embarrass a child in front of siblings or other people any more than necessary for the moment. Once in the proper location, carefully explain why they are getting a spanking and precisely the behavior that got them in this inevitable situation. Once the decision is made, do not consider turning back unless you become genuinely convinced that you have misjudged the situation. Explain what is going to happen: [i.e. at age 3] â€Å"You are going to get four swats, and then we are going to talk about it for a minute, then it will be over.† If possible have the child lay across your lap with their bottom up. Deliver each swat with an open hand only on their clothed bottom and only hard enough that they feel mild discomfort. Sit them up at eye level, repeat the explanation, and have them agree that they will not repeat the behavior again. Ask them to apologize. Assure them that this is the end of the punishment (however, certain offenses or lack of remorse may require a time of quiet thought) and that you are not going to be angry with them about it. Tell them that you love them. When Does Discipline become Abuse? Vs. Discipline by Spanking does not constitute abuse? Discipline is one of the defining elements of parenting; whether used sparingly or liberally, it’s fundamental to the parent-child dynamic. Most Americans agreed with the necessity of sometimes spanking children, but proportions disagreeing increased 15 percentage point (94% overall) between 1986 (16%) and 2010 (31%). Growing proportions disagreed with spanking in each consecutive decade for all significant generational cohorts, with the greatest increase against spanking for Silent Generation (Menard 18).Through discipline, children are taught to become responsible, honest, kind, sharing people. By following their parents’ guidance, teachings and rules, they ideally grow up to be well-behaved and respectful  individuals. If you, however, punish your child instead of disciplining them, the end result will not be the same. Punishment is an act of anger and impulse. It happens when a parent takes things personally; the punishment is, in fact, retaliation for the child’s poor choice. In contrast, discipline is centered on helping the child, with the goal of correcting their choices and actions. A parent who disciplines is trying to teach their child right from wrong, helping them learn life skills. Ultimately, punishment hurts a child whereas discipline helps a child. The urge to punish comes from within when you feel hurt by a child’s behavior — you’re looking to strike back and inflict this same pain, often overreacting to the situation. For example, in the heat of the moment, Mom or Dad might lash out — even raising a hand to a child instead of taking a deep breath and assessing the situation objectively. The challenge parent’s face is to detach themselves from the situation and control their anger and impulses before responding or reacting to the child. By controlling this anger and emotion, a parent can stop themselves from making the situation worse. And this is important, as punishment — which can lead to abuse â⠂¬â€ is usually both unreasonable and much more physical than discipline. Here’s why it’s so important to resist the urge to react in anger. Most abusive parents never plan on hurting their children, but they impulsively react and strike out of anger, punishing them with physical revenge instead of teaching them right from wrong. Once trapped in this mindset of punishment, it is difficult for parents to think rationally or even compassionately about their child’s actions. And in an instant, on impulse, lives can change dramatically. A loving parent can be convicted of child abuse and land themselves in prison simply because they impulsively did something violent to their child. If you choose to listen to your impulses, you lose your self-control and ability to think clearly. For example, a parent grabs their child by the hand. The parent is upset and twists the tiny arm. Being a â€Å"good parent† they take their child to the hospital to have it looked at. They find a greenstick fracture. The x-ray clearly shows how the arm bone was twisted. This is a red flag for hospital employees who know this is a sympto m of child abuse. In a whirlwind, Child Protective Services is called in, the children may be removed from the home,  the guilty parent can be arrested and even go to jail. One of the biggest problems with an adult punishing a child is that the two are not equals. When calm and rational, no one would argue that children are the same as adults. They are not the same size, nor strength; they have less knowledge and fewer life experiences. Furthermore, when parents punish their child out of anger, they teach kids that it’s okay to treat those who are weaker, smaller, and younger with less respect. The parent is modeling a bullying type of behavior which is obviously not a positive way to interact with others. My father was verbally and physically abusive so I understand on a personal level the negative impact impulsive, erratic behavior can have on a child. To justify their actions parents may say, â€Å"This is what happened to me when I was growing up.† While that might explain why you’re more likely to parent this way, it doesn’t excuse the behavior. So, instead of coming home and taking out your frustrations on your children, resist the urge to overreact and lash out at them. Replacing punishment with discipline, In order to function in our society, adults must have a certain amount of self-control, impulse-control and anger management. I’m suggesting these skills be developed in our homes. Again, it’s a matter of respecting our kids as people. Consider the dozens of interactions you have with others on a daily basis. Surely at one point or another someone has said something that you disagreed with or they’ve done something that annoyed you. Did you react by lashing out or hitting the other person? Is there another situation where we, as adults, would act so recklessly even if we were upset? In place of punishment, let’s look at some effective discipline techniques. When establishing discipline in your household, communicating your expectations and guidelines with your children is the first step. Initially, help your kids understand why these rules and expectations are important to you. Then, explain to them what will happen if these expectations are not met — what the consequence will be. By explaining to your kids the reasoning behind the consequences, you’ll be helping them learn from their poor choices. It’s important that a child understands their parents and believes there is logic to their actions. Otherwise, not only is it impossible for the child to meet these goals, but if they break the rules, they have no way of predicting what the reaction will be. However, if  everyone is upfront about what will happen, then your child will be more accepting of the consequences and parents are less likely to overreact. Works Cited Brodie, Kay L., and Barbara Hoffert. â€Å"The Case Against Spanking: How To Discipline Your Child Without Hitting/Lots Of Love And A Spanking!: A Common Sense Discipline Plan For Children From Birth To Age Twelve–That Works.† Library Journal 122.9 (1997): 95. Literary Reference Center. Web. 26 Sept. 2014. Menard, Lauren A. â€Å"Should Discipline Hurt? Shifting American Spanking Beliefs And Implications For School Corporal Punishment Policies.† Online Submission (2012): ERIC. Web. 26 Sept. 2014. Ramsburg, Dawn, and Urbana, IL. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. The Debate Over Spanking. ERIC Digest. n.p.: 1997. ERIC. Web. 26 Sept.2014.

Evolution of Formal Organizations

Evolution of Formal Organizations Free Online Research Papers For many centuries, formal organizations, employers and employees have been taught to operate the same. However many things have changed from the type of jobs and organizations, to how these jobs were completed. For centuries most formal organizations operated under what we call conventional bureaucracy. Conventional bureaucracy is known for its many levels in what we see as the pyramid. The pyramid starting with some higher ranked employees that have more authority down to the hard working rank and file workers, with no say so or authority at all. There were many challenges that these organizations faced. Hard work has always been appreciated throughout the years with these organizations. Past years work was completed with back-breaking labor and now with the advancement of modern technology most but not all work has been replaced with technology devices and more creativity. Unlike family traditions that are learned from generation to generation, how we operate our organizations these days and in our future will be nothing like the way our ancestors had to work. Like previously stated with the modern day technology advancements that we are witnessing, things have become much easier for us, than in past times. At that time the way these organizations attended to their jobs was the same form generation to generation. The work was done but with no change or new creative ideas, these employees felt they were at a dead end job. In the past there were many things that they lacked, that now are beneficial and a must have for formal organizations to operate more efficiently these days. Something that these past generations lacked that is very important to most peoples every day lives today is the technology we have access to on a daily basis. This day in age formal organizations are able to keep records via data bases, as computers and technical devices have been invented. Formal organizations that have to interact with clients, customers and other organizations now have the access to interact via satellite and conference calls as to the past these interactions would have been made face to face with more expenses. As air fare, hotel lodging and the time one would have to invest would be a must and could be rather expensive. Another limitation that these companies faced was the fact that tradition is strong in pre-industrial societies. This meant that their goal was to preserve their cultural systems and not to change them when it came to organizational issues. Many of these reasons have caused past organizations to be inefficient. Formal organizations that practice conventional bureaucracy have many levels of authority with a clear chain of commands. Each level has a title and they have certain expectations they have to uphold for the organization. Each employee has a specific job that they are to perform and a manager or supervisor they will have to report to. These organizations have set standards, rules, policies and regulations that they have follow. These rules and regulations are what kept these organizations some what organized. Relationships within these organizations are very minimal to none. The communications between employees at these types of organizations are usually through an email or a letter of some sort. Bureaucracy is defined as an organizational model rationally designed to perform tasks efficiently. Employees work hard to meet and exceed specific goals of their job requirements. They have to report to specific managers or superiors. This is how things were done with little to no change. During the century of the 1900’s you would usually see white males in management or positions with more authority. In this day in age you will find equal amounts of managers both men and women. Now days there are laws that refrain employers and organizations from discriminating on gender and race. As stated before many things have changed, instead of using each employee’s talents individually, organizations use creativity and strengths to see if there is a better way of getting the job done as in previous times things were repetitive wit no creativity. Like the saying something carved in stone. If an employee has a suggestion on how to better the organization and its employees they wi ll usually take into consideration the options. Many organizations are about their employees and the company, not just the company. Organizations want to find workers for the long run, not to just fill a responsibility. They value the opinions of their employees. Not only is organization a top priority so are the employees. This new type of work that many organizations are adapting to is called an open, flexible organization. The open flexible organization has flattened out the bureaucracy pyramid. This gives most of the employees in the organization the same responsibilities and the same rewards. Instead the many different levels, they are on a more even level with each other. With these new modern work environments employees are able to more creative; they are using greater flexibility competitive teams, working together for the same goal. Organizations are now hiring new employees based off ideas they have and the potential to grow with the organization instead of hiring someone for the work they are able to perform. Organizations today want an employee for a lifetime not for the time being. These new ways of our organizations want to invest the their employee, because they know they deserve nothing less. In the past organizations would have specific rules and policies, with the new modern ways of o rganizations they set guidelines for all to follow. Communication has come a long way as well. They tend to hold meetings for all to attend including all employees instead of just the Directors and CEO making decisions and because of this relationship have become primary as in the past they have always been secondary. Not all organizations will be accustomed to the new open, flexible organizations. Telemarketing companies and fast food chains will still remain with the bureaucracy pyramid. There jobs will remain repetitive doing the same things day in and day out. There is not much more creative you can be in making a cheeseburger and fries. They will always have a superior to answer to, trying to make it to the top of the pyramid. In conclusion, all employee and organizations should want to see the same goal in mind. These organization need to have the employee and organization best interest. They have to be able to hear the people and take into consideration the feelings and creative ideas that all have to offer. I personally feel that it will be more black and white. Some organizations will flatten the pyramid and work as a whole and there will be some organizations that continue with the pyramid roles. Nothing should be set in stone. Change is good. Change brings balance. Research Papers on Evolution of Formal OrganizationsThe Project Managment Office SystemPETSTEL analysis of IndiaOpen Architechture a white paperTwilight of the UAWAssess the importance of Nationalism 1815-1850 EuropeMarketing of Lifeboy Soap A Unilever ProductThe Effects of Illegal ImmigrationIncorporating Risk and Uncertainty Factor in CapitalRelationship between Media Coverage and Social andBionic Assembly System: A New Concept of Self Evolution of Formal Organizations Free Online Research Papers In this day and age, everything is changing; from the jobs that we do, to the way that we do them. For centuries we, and our ancestors, have worked in formal organizations that practice bureaucracy. Bureaucratic organizations have been used to complete some of the worlds most major projects. However, times are changing, and so are our work methods. Today, hard work and organization is still appreciated, just in different forms. Back-breaking labor has been replaced with technology and creativity. Traditions of work that have been passed down by generations are no more. Today, the world thinks rationally. Instead of doing what has always been done, we are now finding a more efficient, quicker way to do it. In the past, formal organizations were based on tradition. Workers completed their work in the same fashion as past generations. This caused companies to be inefficient because their work methods were not modern, everything stayed the same and nothing improved. Also, previous organizations lacked technology. There was no such thing as networking, or conference calls. People met face to face, this could be very expensive if clients were in separate countries. There was no way to store and keep information, this also caused companies to be inefficient. Formal organizations usually have set standards for how they run their business. Rules and regulations are key to an organized environment. A bureaucratic organization usually runs in the form of a pyramid. In this format, every person will always have a supervisor to answer to. The few number of supervisors are located at the top of the pyramid, while the employees are located at the bottom. This pyramid gives structure to an organization. Every person has a job, and are expected to carry out the job to its full expectations. Relationships between co-workers are kept to a minimal. This is to minimize emotion and maximize work. The majority of communication is done via e-mail, telephone, or letters. Everything within a bureaucratic organization is clearly defined with no room for interpretation. This ideal definition of a bureaucratic organization has been tried throughout the years. This is the way that work has aways been done. Employees work hard toward their specified goal, and answer to their superiors at the end of the day. However, as stated before, time are changing. In the early 1900s it was not common to hire anyone besides a white male. And in the workplace, every person had his own job that he was responsible for. Today, companies hire men and women of all races. The theory today, is to take advantage of every individuals talents. Also, cooperation amongst all employees is valued. Instead of using each individual for his or her own talent, companies today are putting teams together to come up with the best possible solutions and work methods. Instead of single man labor, we are now practicing group effort. Large businesses are taking advantage of their employees thoughts and ideas. Creativity is becoming just as important as organization. This new work method has come to be called an open, flexible organization. The bureaucratic pyramid has been flattened to put everyone on a more even scale. Creative freedom, competitive work teams, and flexibility are the new standards for the modern work environment. The characteristics of a large organization are now be converted to represent those of a small group. These changes include, instead of every member having a specialized task, the whole group has a common goal in which they are working towards. Instead of specific rules, informal, general guidelines are established. Instead of hiring people for the work that they can do, people are being hired for the ideas that they come up with. Quick e-mails are being replaced by group meetings. Because of the group setting, relationships in the office are becoming primary rather than secondary. People care about what the other has to say, and instead of viewing each other as competitors, they are viewing each other as colleagues. B ecause each person has their own part to add to the group. These new work methods do not apply to everyone. Highly skilled and trained employees are reaping the benefits of a new wave of creative freedom. However, lower level employees are not. They in fact, are actually working harder than ever. The bureaucratic way of work is still in place for them. They continue to have supervisors way above them, while they remain on the bottom. Fast food chains, retail stores, telemarketing are all fields that are growing as well. Unfortunately, selling hamburgers has no room for creative thought. That is why people are still suffering from bureaucratic organizations. In the future, I believe that it will be black and white. On one end, there will be lower class workers doing the dirty work in a conventional bureaucracy. On the other end, there will be the open flexible organizations where workers have creative freedom, and a friendly atmosphere. I believe that the there is a big difference between the two types of jobs. Certain jobs have responsibilities that must be met by a certain deadline. For instance, a stock boy must have a set amount of merchandise stocked on the shelves by a certain time of day. At the end of the day, he must answer to a supervisor to let them know that his goal was accomplished. In this scenario, there is no room for interpretation there is only one way to stock merchandise. However, on the other hand, a systems developer at a computer company may have weeks to meet deadlines. A new system may need to be planned and they have an abundant amount of time to plan the system efficiently, and work in a team to combine ideas . Although this job has a goal and a deadline, there are numerous amounts of ways that the employee can go about solving the problem. The type of work environment, depends on the type of job that is being done. Research Papers on Evolution of Formal OrganizationsIncorporating Risk and Uncertainty Factor in CapitalThe Project Managment Office SystemMarketing of Lifeboy Soap A Unilever ProductTwilight of the UAWPETSTEL analysis of IndiaResearch Process Part OneAnalysis of Ebay Expanding into AsiaOpen Architechture a white paperPersonal Experience with Teen PregnancyAssess the importance of Nationalism 1815-1850 Europe Evolution of Formal Organizations Free Online Research Papers Over the course of the last 100 years, the overall trend in thinking about organizational form and structure has been toward greater recognition, system complexity, and diversity. While the overall trend in thinking about organizational and management effectiveness has been away from the generic toward the more unique and tailored. Today there are two basic model types that are used for the structure of an organization and the models are: the conventional bureaucracy and the open-flexible organization model. The conventional bureaucracy consists of many levels in its chain of command and all individuals must follow the rules and regulations that govern in this model type. The open-flexible organization has fewer levels of command, and emphasizes that all employees share ideas, apply their creative thoughts, and places the responsibility of failures and success on teams instead of individuals. In my research I will provide simple ideas to help Micah’s organization with change s to a brighter evolution and efficient working environment. For centuries most formal organizations operated under what we call conventional bureaucracy. Conventional bureaucracy is known for its many levels in what we see as the pyramid (Lounsbury Carberry, 2004). Formal organizations that practice conventional bureaucracy have a clear chain of commands with each level having a title that certain expectations have to be upheld for the organization (Lounsbury Carberry, 2004). Each employee has a specific job that they are to perform and a manager or supervisor they have to report to (Lounsbury Carberry, 2004). These organizations have their own set of rules, regulations, and policies that they have to follow (Lounsbury Carberry, 2004). Relationships within these organizations are very minimal to basically none (Lounsbury Carberry, 2004). For centuries one would usually see white males in management or positions with more authority. In this day of age one will find equal amounts of managers being both male and female. There is a law that stops employers and organizations from discriminating on one’s gender or age. The organizations have made major changes that allow creativity and strengths. Many of the organizations today are about their employees and the company, not just the company. Today’s organizations want to hire workers for the long run of employment and not to just fill a responsibility. Not only is organization a top priority so are the employees. Formal organizations are intended for â€Å"special purpose and structured for maximum efficiency† (Schaefer, 2006). These organizations have tremendous power over our economy and in management terms, â€Å"of large-scale operations† (Schaefer, 2006). Formal organizations fill the gap in society enabling them to satisfy our needs. There are several components to the formal organization such as Max Weber’s theory on bureaucracy, â€Å"Bureaucracy that rules and hierarchical ranking† (Schaefer, 2006). This is indicative to â€Å"government, education, and business† (Schaefer, 2006). Characteristics of bureaucracy consist of â€Å"Division of Labor, Hierarchy of authority, written rules and regulations, impersonality, employment based on technical Qualifications† (Schaefer, 2006). Whether one deals with bureaucracies or organizations they both play an essential part in our lives. With the change of times many things has evolved in the organizational system (Borghesi Houston, 2007). Years ago organizations were having many issues with job performance and the quality of work (Borghesi Houston, 2007). This caused the managers’ of the organization to have very little input in the way things were being run. The individuals who worked for these organizations were given positions depending on what the key parts of a job were in the organization (Borghesi Houston, 2007). Now a day’s organizations have developed a new team based foundation where the managers are in charge of monitoring the teams’ progress (Borghesi Houston, 2007) . The best manager’s are the ones who take time to listen to their employee’s and consider their input and idea’s. The input and ideas of employee’s is vital to an organization’s productivity. Most organization’s today give their employee’s individual tasks that utilize their talents (Borghesi Houston, 2007). Many formal organizations have worked to make their work environment more flexible because of the changes in time and workers. Modern organizations have strong desires for their employees to share and apply personal thoughts to work assignments. The modern organizations have developed a strategy that involves members of the company to be placed in their competitive work groups. The objective of these work groups is to establish an atmosphere where each team strives to create the best solutions to any company problems. There are sometime incentives given to the team for evaluating and using their critical thinking to come to solutions to solve any obstacles that have overcome in the company. Advancement of today’s technology, formal organizations are increasing the new way to be more efficient and get the job done. For the formal organization that Micah works for to evolve it has several things that should be changed, so the environment and flexibility will change. For starters all employees’ activities should be more of a team based and also equal between all the employees of the team. Their needs to major change in the structure of authority and organize smaller groups to achieve a common goal. Micah’s organization, like any organization that is striving for perfection and increased revenue, will strategically investigate and use methods or trends that are designed to assist with a company’s demands. Most large corporations are always looking to produce more products, and save money by cutting unnecessary spending without affecting the company. As a result of Micah’s organization following the conventional bureaucracy style since day one, it is going to be extremely difficult to change, and any change made is going to need to be done in small increments. Most companies will only make changes structurally if the company has been going through a financial hardship for quite some time. The formal organizations are seeing that the increase productivity of team work, thanks to team work and the diminishment of the one employee per job are gone. Today formal organizations are now becoming less bureaucratic and more flexible. Newer workers enter and take over and as technology, which means that more jobs are becoming less dependent on manual labor and more dependent on technology. Formal organizations have CEO instead of numerous managers and few senior managers and other employees are put into teams and work towards one specific goal. Life is about changes no matter where things have to start or end. Research Papers on Evolution of Formal OrganizationsResearch Process Part OneOpen Architechture a white paperThe Project Managment Office SystemMarketing of Lifeboy Soap A Unilever ProductPETSTEL analysis of IndiaIncorporating Risk and Uncertainty Factor in CapitalRelationship between Media Coverage and Social andInfluences of Socio-Economic Status of Married MalesBionic Assembly System: A New Concept of SelfAnalysis of Ebay Expanding into Asia