Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Understanding organizations Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words
Understanding organizations - Essay Example Understanding an organization involve thorough understanding of organizational structures and behavior of its human resources as an individual and as various groups. Studying an organization is a complex process. Various ways of evaluating behavior of an organization have developed over time. This document deals with the different thinking processes used to define direction of an organization and its leadership. It compares and analyzes ways of thinking about organizations and the ways organizations are managed.Perceiving the nature and types of organization; power, interest groups and control; job design and teamwork; individual motivation; organizational culture is always a tricky job.Various approaches towards understanding organizations may be seen as different paradigms of thinking. According to Khn a paradigm is the set of values, or principles, that we use when we think.Classical paradigm is also known as rationalistic paradigm. According to Heijden's explanation of classical paradigm in this way of thinking "the organizational self-perception dictates that the organization is a rather stable entity engaged in a mechanistic relationship with the surrounding environment. This self-perception is not ignorant of change, but it is conceptualized as moving from one stable phase to another and this movement can be initiated through certain, focused actions within the organization" Classical approach towards understanding an organization assumes diagnosis as a primary objective in a rational change of organization. This approach is more objective. Changes within an organization are considered in quasi-stationary equilibrium state for the purpose of classical analysis. Classical paradigm relies on the method of self questioning. Various questions such as in which strategic direction organization is moving, how developed the organization culture is, how should it be and how it could be planned to develop culture in a satisfactory rhythm are raised to evaluate the organizations and strength of their leaders. There are some basic problems with classical approach. First is that, type of questionnaire gives an impression of static nature of an organization ignoring the dynamic nature and emergent scenarios that originations are facing today. This is a sensitive issue as nature of human resources is always core of an organization. Second difficulty is that answers of these questionnaires are derived generally by analysis of associated numbers and statistics which gives a sense of vogue. They seem far from reality as organization's culture can not be treated just like profit and losses. The third problem is that the questionnaire is aimed within the organization whereas the organizational changes can be engineered from outside of the organization also. Classical paradigm thus is effective to analyze only mechanical metaphor of organization. Classical paradigm is always paralyzed because of its rational world view. This paradigm clearly defines the goals of organization without much caring about the execution of plans. It does not emphasize much on outcome maximizing behaviors of organizations and its resources. Classical thinking process is centered on the board room of organization without much caring about business' ground reality. In this case a single entity determines the success or failure of strategy. Processual Paradigm Processual paradigm is also referred as scenario planning paradigm. This approach towards understanding organization is based on the probability theory. Organizations are evaluated according to fact available from their previous performances. Different patterns of organizational performance are the basic of future performance analysis. Processual paradigms can be applied to the phases of linear changes or stable periods ut this probabilistic approach has some basic inherent difficulties as there is no guarantee that the past facts will reflect on future performance
Monday, October 28, 2019
Classical Conditioning Essay Example for Free
Classical Conditioning Essay Classical conditioning is an association between two stimuli; It is what proceeds the response. The two stimuli in my experiment was the ringing of the bell and the on and off of the light switch performed in a dark room. During my experiment I rang the bell and then immediately turned off the lights. I remained in the dark for fifteen seconds then turned the light back on. I left the light on for fifteen seconds, and would monitor my pupils in the mirror then ring the bell and would simultaneously turned off the light again. After doing this several times, I rang the bell one last time but did not turn off the lights. Then I immediately looked into the mirror to monitor my pupils. I noticed that the pupils dilated. The unconditional response (UR) is that my pupils would dilate when the room became dark which I had no control. The conditioned response (CR) is that the bell stimulated the pupils to dilate. Prier to this time, the ringing of the bell had no effect on the dilation of my pupils. Therefore, the classical conditioning programmed my pupils to dilate upon the ringing of the bell and controlling the light stimuli. I repeated the same experiment but this time I did not ring the bell at all to see if the time would have a response. Every fifteen seconds I would turn the lights either on or off. The results were negative. In conclusion, indeed it took two stimuli, the ringing of the bell and the lights to provoke a response.
Saturday, October 26, 2019
History and Concepts of Boundaries Essays -- essays research papers
Chapter 1 – History and Concepts of Boundaries Principal 2: A suveyor creates land boundary lines. These created lines, which are separate and distinct from property lines, are determined by legal principals and law. Boundaries: The line that separates two adjoining land parcels as determined by legal descriptions. Land boundaries can be marked by hedges, fences, monument, or not at all A.     The law determines what boundaries are; facts determine where boundaries are located. B.     A boundary exists because the law permits it to exist. Boundary lines are invisible, yet once created, they have legal authority. C.     Boundaries of a parcel are created by the original surveyor through measurements and writings. 1.     A closed boundary describes a claim of right to a property interest for which any person can make a claim of possession. 2.     Once the original boundary is created and described, legally, that description remains in effect forever. 3.     According to the federal statutes, as well as common case law, those lines remain fixed in perpetuity from the time the first property rights are conveyed. 4.     Usually, to have a boundary created that boundary must have terminal points or corners. a)     Corners and monuments are not the same. 1) Corner: Is a calculated point (theory). 2) Monument: Is a physical object on the ground that marks a corner (physical). 3) Corners carry the same legal dignity as monuments. D.     A resurvey should do the following: 1.     Identify the existing conditions of the boundary lines at conveyence. 2.     Identify the condition of the original corner monuments. 3.     Redefine the definition of the courses (bearing/distance) in more modern terms. The Role of the Surveyor and the Law A.     The role of the surveyor should include the following: 1.     Create original boundaries of a parcel through measurements and writings. 2.     The surveyor is also the person who retraces the boundaries created originally and creates new evidence for future su... ... of the land, whether or not mentioned in the conveyance. 4)     Easement in Gross: Attaches to a person, not a particular parcel of land. f)     Creating an easement. 1)     Express conveyence through a deed or will. A)     Most popular way to create a deed. B)     Easement Deeds: Those deeds that describe and convey an easement strictly without deeding a tract of land. C)     The deed must describe correctly interest conveyed and must comply with all formalities required for the transfer of land. 2)     Implication (implied easements) A)     According to the general rule of law, when an owner of a tract of land conveys part of it to another, the owner is said to grant with it, by implication, all easements that apparent and obvious and that are reasonably necessary for the fair enjoyment of the land granted. B)     Implied easements are often sought in litigation when there is no apparent right-of-way to a land locked parcel. 3)    Â
Thursday, October 24, 2019
The 1950’s and 60’s Civil Rights
(1) Trumans civil rights committee: In 1947 Trumans Civil Rights Committee recommended laws protecting the right of African Americans to vote and banning segregation on railroads and buses. It also called for a federal law punishing lynching. He issued executive orders ending segregation in the armed forces and prohibiting job discrimination in all government agencies. (2) Brown V. the Board of Education (1954): In 1954 the Supreme Court made one of the most important decisions in its long history. It decided in the case of Brown v. Board Of Education of Topeka that it was unconstitutional for states to maintain separate schools for African American and white children. This case over turned the â€Å"Separate but equal†doctrine established in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson back in 1896. (3) Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955): After the supreme court decided to end segregation, African Americans started to speak out more about their racial opinions. In Montgomery, Alabama, a bus boycott ended with a victory for the African Americans. The Supreme Court ruled that the Alabama segregation laws were unconstitutional. During the boycott a young African American Baptist minister, Martin Luther King, Jr. became well known. Throughout the long contest he advised African Americans to avoid violence no matter had badly provoked by whites. Rosa Parks tired of sitting in the back of the bus, and giving up her seat to white men. One weary day she refused to move from the front of the bus, and she became one of history†s heroes in the Civil Rights Act movement. (4) The Civil Rights Act: In 1964 congress passed a Civil Rights Act prohibiting racial discrimination in restaurants, theaters, hotels, hospitals, and public facilities of all sorts. This civil rights act also made it easier and safer for Southern Blacks to register and vote. Laws were passed to help poor people improve their ability to earn money, a program to give extra help to children at risk even before they were old enough to go to school, and a program to train school dropouts. (5) The Great Society: These actions were very popular. Johnson easily won the 1964 presidential election and then proposed what he called the Great Society program. This was Johnson†s plan. He would work to improve the lives of all people, but especially the poor and the powerless. Programs were aimed at helping every segment in society. (6) Passive Resistance: After Martin Luther King, Jr. successfully led the African Americans through the bus boycott, he became a national figure. Every where he preached the idea of non- violence or passive resistance as the best way to achieve racial equality. †Nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards†he said. One must â€Å"accept blows from the opponent without striking back†. Love, not hate or force, was the way to change people†s minds. 1. †Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice†. 2. †Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we are free at last!†3. †I have a dream that one day this great nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘ We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal.â€
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Od vs Hr
We are witnessing and participating in an unprecedented dissolution of the boundaries of the field of organization development. In organizations around the world, the HRS function Is monopolizing the ODD function at an unprecedented pace, which is limiting our reach, blunting our effectiveness, and compromising our role. †ODD and HRS Do We Want the Lady or the Tiger? By Matt Mailman Ding. Ding. Ding. K, time's up. Time to decide. Will it be door number one, or door number two? The lady or the tiger? In Frank Stockpot's allegory (1882), a prisoner is ordered to choose between two closed doors.Behind one is a woman whom he must marry sight unseen and live with for the rest of his life; behind the other is the tiger which would surely eat him alive. Without knowing exactly what is behind which door, how Is one to choose? And, which does one really prefer? Like the mythical prisoner, the field of ODD has been standing In front of two doors for too long, putting off the choice betw een them. One door would leave the ODD function embedded within HRS; the other would get ODD out to stand independently on its own two feet in the organization.The field of ODD has been putting off this decision for too long? nice its inception, in fact?and it is time for us to make the decision. Well into our mid-ass as a field, we can't really blame all of this mess on our forebears, because frankly we're dealing with these choices Just as badly as they did when the field was first founded. We're still standing looking at the same two doors between which our ODD forebears could not decide. Long History, Deep Roots This question about whether ODD should be part of HRS or should stand on its own goes back to the founding of our field.What became organization development had its roots in the training and placement function, where the T group was the primary Intervention. At a panel of the founders of ODD at the 2009 Academy of Management conference in Chicago, almost every one of the m, to a man, said that they were trained as writers or sociologists or engineers, but attended an ANT Institute T group where their lives changed. (Several also lamented that they were all white men in the field at that time, and on that panel at MOM. Following their ANT experiences, they tried to bring these insights they had obtained Into their organizations via the training function. By the ate sass, Just a few years after the field was founded by about a dozen Internal training and development people at Ant's summer home in Bethel, Maine, the theory was, â€Å"let's transform the way managers think about themselves and the ways they relate to people and solve problems, and once we've done that, we can send them back home to transform their own organizations†(Operas & Bradford, 2004).Evidently, there were some who said that the ODD function should stand on its own and be independent to other intelligence (Burke, 2 ). Others, however, were concerned t the field of ODD was too new and unknown and should reside in the personnel or raining function, as advocated by Shell Davis of TRW Systems, Sys Levy from Pillsbury, Herb Sheppard formerly of Sees, Dick Backyard, and others. Their belief was that â€Å"ODD at the time was too new, too ephemeral, and too suspect to survive on its own in the organization †¦Early on, then, two models or scenarios ODD and HRS: Do We Want the Lady or the Tiger? 17 about the place of ODD within the organization were debated regarding the wisdom of such a placement†(Burke, 2004). Theory Versus Fact The vast majority of the central thinkers, writers, and scholars in our field today (Cummings & Worldly, 2005; Marshal, 2009; Ferrymen & Worldly, 2009; Retell, et al. , 2009) write as if ODD is a separate and distinct field of practice, but the facts on the ground tell a different story.We are witnessing and participating in an unprecedented dissolution of the world, the HRS function is monopolizing the ODD function at an unprecedented pace, which is limiting our reach, blunting our effectiveness, and compromising our role. As a field, we are behaving as if there is nothing we can do about it; it is as if we are watching ourselves in an automobile crash in slow motion, worried and concerned at hat we see, and yet unable to find the brakes or grab the steering wheel to avert the collision and all of the collateral damage.Maybe the founders of the field were right that ODD was too new and too fragile to stand on its own. But they didn't count on what's happening now in the field of HRS. The Ascendancy of HRS Over the past 15 years, we have seen better and better leadership of the HRS function, with several universities now offering Masters' degrees in HARM and HARD and several MBA degrees with an HRS concentration. The result has been a generation of stronger, more tragic HRS managers who have achieved a seat at the table and are trusted advisors at the top of organizations.Many managers at the top of the HRS function are getting better by the year about understanding the dynamics of the organizations in which they serve. Increasingly, they can speak the language of the board room, and are not afraid to undertake even major organization change projects. This new generation of HRS leaders clearly understands that people and money are the powers that run organizations; and when the system can provide enough of the latter, their Job is to get Just enough f it into the hands of the former to get the Job done. And then return the rest to stakeholders. And to keep the organization out of court.In these regards, they are notably different from the generation of HRS managers and VSP that preceded them, when there was no professional training for HRS managers and when these posts often went to the UP who was due to retire next. The evolution of the training function also has had an impact. Ever increasing pressures to reduce costs nave torched the training diminution to get smart about impact evaluation. Kirkpatrick (1998) four levels have forced the training function to kook beyond end-of-session â€Å"smile sheets†to defend their budgets and make the case that training is a valuable investment.The result has been that training functions are now requiring training managers who have the skills to collect data, analyze it, and think systemically about what to do with it. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? If you needed The days of HRS staff being hired principally because they were people persons with DOD listening skills are gone. The trend toward activity based costing (BBC) is now showing the true cost of overhead functions such as HRS, and HRS is responding by asking itself more relevant to the business of the organization.Many HRS staff are now called business partners, often reflecting an aspiration goal, but quite distant from the actual reality of their skills on the ground. With this smarter, more strategic generation of HRS managers comes the instinct and desire to have at hand one of the most powerful levers for organizational change and renewal, the ODD function. Thus the trend of ODD roles and functions being acquired by HRS. And, to be clear, in merger and acquisition terms, these are not mergers of equals; they are straight up acquisitions of the ODD function by HRS.Another factor has been the pressure on HRS functions to be relevant to the business of the organization. The days of HRS staff being hired principally because they were people persons with good listening skills are gone. The trend toward activity based costing (BBC) is now showing the true cost of overhead functions such as HRS, and HRS is responding by making itself more relevant to the business of the organization. Many HRS staff are now called business partners, often reflecting an aspiration goal, but quite distant from the actual reality of their skills on the ground. Money to do that, wouldn't you be looking for a DOD ODD person?Often desperate to meet the ir utilization goals, the training function is very happy to let managers continue to believe that training is the answer to every problem, a kind of panacea for whatever ails. Leaders and employees alike seem to rely on training as the answer, believing perhaps that with the right education they can deliver what the business needs. That is certainly an easier solution to accept than facing ODD issues related to how people, teams, and departments relate and connect with one another, how business processes work, and how all connect with ND work toward the strategic direction of the organization.So, it is no wonder that smart HRS leaders are looking to candidates trained and educated in ODD to take on these business partner and training leadership roles, resulting in even more blurring of the lines between ODD and HRS. 18 ODD PRACTITIONER Volvo. 42 NO. 4 2010 Differences Are Real, and Important By now, this author's biases are probably clear: there are important differences between th e ODD and HRS functions; and as these roles collapse and the differences disappear, the field of ODD is losing its unique position in the organization and its effectiveness overall.We're behaving as a field as if we uncoil be living in a both/and world around this, when the truth is exactly the opposite. Many in ODD struggle to find and hold boundaries that separate people and things. We spend our entire time helping our clients make better connections between each other at all levels?individuals and pairs, cross unit collaboration, organizations working toward better partnerships, etc. But when it comes to ODD and our HRS cousins, we should be sharpening and better defining our boundaries, not blurring them, because the differences in our functions are real and important.The HRS function has a legally mandated, regulatory role: to provide people to fill Jobs, to reduce costs (for payroll, health care insurance, benefits, etc. ), and to keep the organization out of the courts and th e press by ensuring compliance and avoiding claims of discrimination or harassment. People view HRS as the people you go to with a problem that you want to make official. People feel that going to HRS puts things in the record. They see HRS as the enforcers or policemen.The ODD function has a developmental mandate; in fact, our Job is to increase the effectiveness of the organization and to maximize the potential of the human beings in the work force. We have theories, concepts, beliefs, and values through which we help our clients assure that there is alignment among strategy, structure, business process, and culture, while at the same time embedding human values such as honesty, respect, diversity, and voice.One model (Marshal, 2006) outlines three domains of knowledge for ODD practitioners: Ã’Â » understanding social systems, drawing on theories and ideas from the social sciences, including psychology, social psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, and others, consistent with ODD aloes; understanding the wows and whys of change, including the bodies of knowledge that help explain how all levels of the system?individual, group, organizational, community, and even societies change; and understanding the role of the third party change agent, especially aiding the person in charge as well as the system itself to bring about the desired changes, requiring an understanding of the issues, politics, psychological processes related to being a third party in a change process. That doesn't sound much like the recruit, retain, train, and develop mandate of the HRS function, does it? It is hard to imagine even the highest functioning HRS departments being knowledgeable and skilled in all these areas. There are many in HRS who look at the list of ODD functions and say, â€Å"Oh, we can do that! †And, on occasion, they may be right.But the philosophies of the two disciplines are starkly different, as are the theory bases, the world views, the c ore skills sets, and their roles within the organization. There is a built-in conflict between the role of ODD consultant, coach or adviser with a developmental mandate working toward organizational effectiveness, versus the role to the R practitioner whose core mandate is regulatory and endorsement. Can a good HRS person advise on selected developmental matters, such as training strategies and needs assessments? Yes, as can a good ODD person. But the conflict of interest for the HRS staff shows up when the Action Research process of retreat planning and design requires them to interview staff about a manager's effectiveness.What staff member in her right mind would say something critical of their manager to someone from HRS, who is likely also to be involved in decisions about that manager's promotion, pay, and even succession planning? Or their own? HRS has its hands on too many of the organizational levers and has too many mandates centering around enforcement and control to ever be effective at drawing out of managers the truth about their insecurities, anxieties, and the shadow sides, that is so necessary to doing good work and being effective in doing ODD. Troubling Examples These concerns aren't Just theoretical, either. Quick conversations with a handful of colleagues, both ODD and HRS, turn up some troubling examples.In a large multinational organization, The Different Functions Organization Development  Improve the effectiveness of the organization Maximize the potential of human beings and their contributions to the organization Align strategy, structure, business processes, and behavior into an effective corporate culture Model and foster humanistic values into the workplace Human Resources Manage employee attraction, retention, development, and performance management Develop and manage programs for employee relations, staff wellbeing, workforce planning, and workload management Ensure equity and diversity Reduce labor costs Avoid litigation E nforce corporate policies 9 the ODD staff and external consultants were forced to follow the rules that govern the rest of the HRS function around meeting with VSP and senior managers. The HRS UP insisted that he attend every meeting that the HRS?and ODD! ?staff had with other VSP in the organization. Not Just marketing or contracting meetings, but actual project meetings as well. He was unwilling to make an exception for the ODD staff lest the HRS staff get upset.Within weeks, his it was in Corporate Strategy along with the strategy and budget functions, where it had free reign of the organization and was in constant contact with the top dervish on strategy, structure, and corporate culture. It was later merged into the HRS function. The results: the best organization design people in town left (with all of their embedded knowledge) rather than be reassigned to deliver management training programs. Then a succession to HRS managers grade- practitioner is, then anybody can hang out a shingle claiming he or she is an ODD consultant. In fact, some years ago, there was an informal study of the members of the ODD Network that found that almost one third of them had taken on the label or the role of ODD consultant, with no previous education or training in the field.Not All Bad News To be clear, the field has shifted largely positively, over the past few decades, responding to some of the â€Å"red flags†that Larry Greener (1972) identified for ODD, including: Ã’Â » Putting individual behavior ahead of strategy, structure, process, and controls; Ã’Â » Overemphasized the informal at the expense of the formal organization, driving more for openness and trust to change the culture, often at the expense of efficiency, hierarchy, and accountability; Ã’Â » Driving open and trusting relationships as a normative model for change, without questioning the context or applicability in a even situation, and assuming that team building was always the preferre d intervention; Ã’Â » Putting process before task, enamored with the human dynamics of working together over getting the work done; and Ã’Â » Treating the manager as Just another stakeholder, relatively uninvolved in the planning and conduct of consultant programs rather than the key stakeholder. Historically, the field has addressed many, if not all, of these red flags among strong and well-grounded practitioners. However, many of them are still quite evident in HRS people who are trying to do ODD today.The Right Answer Reflecting on the various options for organizing and structuring the ODD function and constructing its relationship with HRS, the optimum solution is to establish In a large financial institution, the ODD function thrived when it was part of the IT function where it designed and facilitated large business process simplification projects. It had its best years when it was in Corporate Strategy along with the strategy and budget functions, where it had free re ign of the organization and was in constant contact with the top leadership on strategy, structure, and corporate culture. It was later merged into the HRS function. The results: the best organization design people in town left (with all of their embedded knowledge) rather than be reassigned to deliver management training programs. Schedule became a huge constraint on the work of the ODD function because consultants (internal and external) could not get into his calendar to meet with their clients. In a science-based organization the ODD function was fully financially self-sufficient, recovering the costs and a bit of an â€Å"upgrade†from its internal clients. Other HRS managers got resentful of this chargeable mechanism. They forced the manager of the ODD program to stop cupping her costs, which effectively killed the ODD function because it had no free- standing budget of its own. In a university, a very strong and capable ODD function has been merged and renamed Learning and ODD, resulting in the organization's best ODD talent being diverted into managing the training program for the university.In a large financial institution, the ODD function thrived when it was part of the IT function where it designed and facilitated large business process simplification projects. It had its best years when ally reduced the ODD function to delivering two day team alluding retreats, and a cadre of dozens of internal and external consultants has been whittled down to less than 10. In one knowledge -based organization we know, the ODD person is required to have the HRS person present during all contracting and data collection meetings. Clients are now creatively working around the requirement by calling the ODD staff directly on their cell phones after hours to discuss matters that they can't or won't say in front of the HRS people, who are not trusted in that system.No Boundaries, No Standards What Bradford and Burke (2004) said about the jack of standards in the field of ODD applies equally well to the lack of boundaries with the HRS function. â€Å"When there is lack of clarity as to the boundaries of the field and corresponding confusion about what the appropriate role of an ODD 20 the ODD function independently. Ideally, it would have a blended mandate and funding, charging back for local unit-specific work, and centrally funded for organization-wide efforts. There are instances when ODD should be working in partnership with the HRS function, specialists on one discipline speaking with and working closely with specialists of the other discipline.There are instances when the HRS function would be the ODD function's client; and there are instances when the ODD and HRS functions ought not to be working together at all, such as when there are conflicts of interest or large scale organization strategy or design projects not ready for implementation. There are disadvantages to being freestanding and independent within the organization. The O DD function may become vulnerable to exposure, scrutiny, and politics. Some ODD people can't play in the C-suite (Burke, 2004). The function would have to earn its stripes and compete for money and mandate with there functions in strategic planning, financial management, budget, and yes, even HRS.But the upsides of organizational independence are quite significant, and are evident now where strong ODD departments are standing on their own. The ODD function becomes central to the business of the organization, influencing strategy, mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, restructuring, etc. It works upstream, providing early input on the development of plans and processes, able to bring a systemic perspective and ODD values to actions that previously had been made primarily on financial grounds alone. It is present and able to influence the setting of the agenda, not Just the implementation of it. But How to Get There? It is no longer enough Just to be good at process.To be able to st and independently in organizations, free of the cover and support of the HRS function, ODD practitioners need to: Ã’Â » Know the major environmental, regulatory, and financial drivers of the organization; Know, be known by, and trusted by the top leadership to the organization; Know what's involved in evaluating, deciding, and implementing mergers and acquisitions, especially around blending corporate cultures and business processes; Be effective n working across cultures, in global environments, and especially today, virtually; and Be attuned to the organizational politics within the organization and within its governance structures. (Greener ; Cummings, 2004) Integrating sustainability and globalization into the world of ODD brings another set of challenges.To play effectively as a free standing function, free of support from HRS, ODD practitioners need: Ã’Â » New and better ideas for progress, guided by diversity, development, and sustainability; Ã’Â » To understand a nd be effective at intervening in economic systems, balancing productivity with innovation, sustainability, and perversity; socially constructed and negotiated (Bushes ; Marshal, 2008). As the boundaries of the field have expanded over the past 15 years to include more systemic perspectives, there are new challenges for how to educate new ODD professionals (Minoan ; Farther, 2008). That's a tall order for a field that has prided itself historically on being apolitical, focusing on the individual, following the lead of the client, ambivalent about asserting ourselves in leadership roles within our client systems, and seeing ourselves as a bit subversive in being countercultures. There is some good news here, however.
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Drugs in a Workplace
Drugs in a Workplace Free Online Research Papers In recent years Illicit drug use has become more prevalent in the workplace. Consequently, many employers began administering random drug tests to ensure the full performance and efficiency of their employees. While an employer has the right to ensure that his staff are fulfilling their contractual agreements and maximizing potential revenue for the firm, the established drug testing programs that are currently in use are subject to numerous flaws. Primarily, these tests are both inaccurate and ambiguous and as such they are ineffective at preventing workplace drug abuse. Secondly, the invasive nature of these tests lowers employee morale, which in turn leads to lower performance. Thirdly, these tests require the submission of personal fluids and may reveal other personal information that is not relevant to the scope of the job. Furthermore, the use of these tests is a clear violation of an employee’s personal autonomy. Consequently, due to the aforementioned issues, I strongly believe that the current method of drug testing in the work place does not hold sufficient stance in order to justify the invasion of employee privacy rights. Furthermore, I believe that more effective means are available and should be adopted by employers who are seeking to identify drug users in their workplace. The central flaw of workplace drug tests is their ambiguity and likelihood of error. Specifically, most workplace drug tests use urine analysis to determine whether the individual in question is guilty of illicit drug abuse. However, statistical data shows that tests using urine samples are subject to over 30% rate of error , and are therefore an inappropriate method of testing. Furthermore, urine sample drug tests detect any traces of drugs that are present in the individual’s body at the time of testing, even though these drugs may no longer be active. Additionally, there are currently 250 medications that could cause a false positive, these include such drugs as Advil, Nuprin, Motrin, and Midol . Furthermore, the test ambiguity results from the fact that the tests do not specify whether the drugs were taken during work hours or whether they were used on the employee’s leisurely time and are therefore a violations of privacy. Lastly, urine analysis tests are time inef ficient as any positive results must undergo a second review before they could be remitted as legitimate . Thus, while the central purpose of drug testing is to prevent any potential injuries within the workplace, the length of time that it takes for these tests’ results to come in leaves plenty of opportunity for potential harms and injuries to occur. Consequently, it is apparent that due to their rate of error, lack of precision with regards to the time of abuse, and a lengthy processing period urine sample drugs tests are ambiguous and ineffective and as such should no longer be administered by employers. The detrimental effects that drugs tests have on employee morale is the second reason why employers should immediately cease their implementation. According to the article â€Å"Drug Testing and the Right Privacy: Arguing the Ethics of Workplace Drug testing†by Michael Cranford, drug tests are not only a good means of detecting poor employee performance, but also they enable employers to identify and resolve any drug abuse that is taking place within their workplace . However, in spite of these tests’ ability to identify workplace drug abusers they are highly detrimental as they may foster lower work performance and decrease employee morale. Specifically, seeing as these tests are highly invasive and require the submission of personal body fluids under the supervision of an observer they cause many employees to feel violated and mistrusted . Furthermore, according to Joseph Desjardins and Ronald Duska, authors of â€Å"Drug testing in Employment†, the random ad ministration of drug tests to all employees is not only unjustifiable but can also constitute a grave violation of one’s privacy. Conversely, while administering the drugs to all employees may seem unreasonable, targeting specific workers should also be prohibited as the selected individuals will feel discriminated against and their personal rights will be infringed upon. Consequently, it is apparent that the arbitrary administration of drug tests either to all employees or to specifically selected workers is not justifiable. Furthermore, not only are these tests not effective at maintaining high employee performance they result in lower employee morale and in a decreased work quality. A third downfall to urine sample drug tests is that they not only reveal any potential illicit substances present in one’s system, but they also detect additional medical information such as pregnancy . Such content may be personal to the employee and should not be disclosed to their employer. According to Desardins and Duska, â€Å" an employee’s right to privacy is violated whenever personal information is requested, collected, and/or used by an employer in a way or for any purpose that is irrelevant to or in violation of the contractual relationship that exists between the employer and employee†. Desardins and Duska further argued that â€Å" Since drug testing is a means for obtaining information, the information sought must be relevant to the contract in order for the drug testing to not violate privacy†. However, seeing as these tests not only specify drug abuse that takes place during work hours, but also reveal any illicit substances used during an employee’s leisurely time they may constitute a violation of one’s privacy. Furthermore, not only do urinary samples fail to specify the time of the illicit abuse, they also reveal additional private information such as pregnancy and the intake of prescribed medication. To conclude, the current method used for the detection of drugs is a violation of privacy as it reveals extraneous personal information about an employee that is not relevant to their work. Lastly, the forceful administration of mandatory drug testing fails to preserve an individuals’ right to autonomy. According to Diana Zorn, â€Å"to respect another’s autonomy is to treat them as individuals having the abilities required to be rational decision makers capable of identifying their own interests and making their own choices about the best means to advance†. However, by prohibiting the subject employees the ability to refuse the test with out negative re-precaution, employers are assuming that people are irrational human beings who in fact are not capable making their own decisions. Furthermore, Information privacy is violated when a person losses control over information that is rightfully personal . Seeing that urine tests reveal leisurely drug use, and other personal conditions, thereby causing the employee to lose control over personal information, and thus taking away ones’ autonomy. Conversely, it could be argued that autonomy has its limitations one of which being the harm principle. According to the harm principle if the preservation of a personal autonomy may lead to potential harm, it is justifiable to not honor such autonomy . However, due the fact that the current method of drug testing requires ample time for processing, such test is unable to prevent a large portion of harms, thereby annulling the harm principle. To conclude, a thorough analysis of the moral issues involved in the administration of mandatory drug testing in the workplace reveals that such tests are unethical and as such their practice should be ceased. Presently, the majority of drug tests implemented by employers are highly ambiguous and erroneous as they carry a high error rate and are enable to specify the time of the drug use. Furthermore, the primary purpose of these tests is to prevent future injuries in the work place and maintain high employee performance both of which the test fail to accomplish. Lastly, arbitrary urine sample drug tests constitute a grave infringement on employees’ privacy and constitutional rights and as such they should be deemed both unethical and illegal. Above all else, this method of drug testing fails to preserve an employees sense of autonomy. Given the numerous downfalls that urine sample drug tests carry I conclude that they are highly unethical and should no longer be administered by employers. Instead, workplaces nationwide would be well advised to adopt more effective and less invasive means of drug abuse surveillance by adopting computer based programs, such as the Bowles-Langley Computer Based Drug Testing , and carefully monitoring their staff. Research Papers on Drugs in a WorkplaceMoral and Ethical Issues in Hiring New EmployeesStandardized TestingThe Relationship Between Delinquency and Drug UseThe Effects of Illegal ImmigrationResearch Process Part OneUnreasonable Searches and SeizuresEffects of Television Violence on ChildrenIncorporating Risk and Uncertainty Factor in CapitalTwilight of the UAWGenetic Engineering
Monday, October 21, 2019
Free Social Security Death Index (SSDI) Online Search
Free Social Security Death Index (SSDI) Online Search The Social Security Death Index, commonly referred to as the SSDI, is a database containing the names and dates of birth and death for over 77 million Americans. This massive database is a wonderful resource for genealogists, and is available in many online locations for free search. To learn more about about the Social Security Death Index, and what it can tell you about your ancestors, read How-to Guide to the SSDI. Note about free Social Security Death Index Access: In late 2011, a number of genealogy sites removed or restricted access to the free SSDI database, the public version of the SSA Death Master File. The following sites still provide free SSDI access as of December 2015: FamilySearch- SSDI Search Free online search of the SSDI, a name index to deaths recorded by the Social Security Administration beginning in 1962. Free, unrestricted search. This database was last updated on 28 February 2014, just prior to restrictions enacted in March 2014 which require that newly reported deaths will not be made available in the public version of the Social Security Death Index for three years after the individuals death. As such, new deaths reported after February 2014 will not be available in this database until 2017. Social Security Death Master File, Free Tom Alciere makes available this free version of the Social Security Death Master File, current as of November 2011, and searchable by name or social security number. This copy does not have available the death-residence location or death benefit payout ZIP Code. For additional search features for accessing these files, check out the SSDI search tool at DonsList.net. GenealogyBank- Free SSDI Search Advanced search features make this free version of the SSDI easy to use (with registration). However, it is only current through 2011, stating that due to compliance with Section 203 (Restriction on Access to the Death Master File) of the Budget Act of 2013, they are no longer able to display SSDI records for individuals who have died within the previous 3 years. More importantly, GenealogyBank does not provide social security numbers for any individual in the database, whether or not the death was recent. Searching the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) in One Step Steve Morse has created a very handy search form which enhances the search abilities of many of the free SSDI search engines on the Web. You can choose from a variety of free SSDI databases to search through this flexible search interface. Ancestry.com also offers a searchable version of the SSDI, but it is available only to paying subscribers and not free. It is current through mid-March 2014, but does not include social security numbers for individuals who died within the past 10 years. Going forward, new records will be available when they are older than 3 years (1095 days), to comply with U.S. law. More on the SSDI Tips for Searching the Social Security Death IndexHow to Request a Copy of a Social Security Application SS-5Social Security Numbering: How to Tell Where a Social Security Number Was Issued
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)