There are times when reality falls short of expectations, and when individuals fail to live up to their ideals. The quest to attain what we really want can be an all-encompassing one, requiring all of our devotion and effort. It is especially painful to see others possess what we cannot have. For the characters in Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby these problems are all too real. Gatsby works for a lifetime to gain back what he feels is rightfully his, while facing the crushing realization that he may be too late. Fitzgerald uses this futile search to introduce the idea that the idealized America Gatsby fought for has been corrupted over time. Descriptions of a land of picket fences and middle class freedom is exchanged for one based on greed and lies, where characters will stop at nothing to obtain what they desire. Fitzgerald provides a window into the American Dream, and shows that it has become one based on immorality and deception. Although the marriage of Daisy and Tom Buchanan may have been based on love and devotion, it, like the American Dream as a whole, has been corrupted to become disingenuous and predatory. Tom and Daisy are two people who are content with the somewhat platonic relationship they share, and acquire a child like they would a diamond necklace, a display of affection rather than in the interest of starting a family. One of the first indications that readers receive that the marriage is unhealthy is when Tom interrupts dinner to take a call from his mistress. This event fails to cause a stir in the household, and is merely brushed off by Jordan, who finds fault with the annoying time of the interruption rather than its meaning. Taking on the removed role usually filled by Nick, she comments that Tom’s mist... ... centers on the hollow characters of the East and their careless and senseless ways of living. Fitzgerald uses his work to provide a social commentary on the nature of America and the condition of the American Dream as it pertains to society in the 1920’s. By using characters like Nick as outsiders to the Eastern world of wealth and sophistication, he is able to provide readers a glimpse into the glamorous life that the Buchanans lead, yet also reveal their flaws. The inclusion of Gatsby also aids in the creation of the image of the American Dream as one grounded in lies and infidelity. Where some may see the promise of America to be the ability to gain a large estate on Long Island, Fitzgerald shows that this is not enough, that the true dream is the ability to not care about the messes one makes, and to be able to leave them to someone else to be cleaned up.
0 Comments
Rational Perspective And Approaches To Strategic Management The word strategy mainly takes for granted the historical and geo political conditions under which management precedences are determined and executed. Strategic Management is not just restricted to the business world rather it can be seen in the ever widening circle of problems which are suitable for its application- from public sector and NGOs to regional economic development. In this essay we try to explore the rationalities to help managers improve organizational effectiveness and corporate profitability. The dynamic approach seeks to explore the nature of strategic management as an organizational process. The rational approach exposes the contradictions between the idealised myth of perfect competition and the more realistic ramifications of market power as explored by business school strategists (Porter, 1980). But at the end of the day, for both approaches, it has been seen that managers are the only players within the organisational structure of the market who have any power in the real strategic process. This eventuality has been criticised by such eminent scholars as Whittington (1993), who proposes mechanisms to ensure that the strategy process remains objective rather than being captured by a particular management faction; moreover, he suggests that managers can draw from broader, less visible sources of power, such as the political resources of the state, the network resources of ethnicity, or, if male, the patriarchal resources of masculinity (1993: 38). Moving away from managers One limitation of the dearth of literature available on the analysis of strategic planning is an account of how a faction of global managerial staff came to assume and maintain a stronghold on the strategic processes in the larger scheme of the market. There, however, have been individuals who have addressed this issue, notably among them Shrivastava, who, in a landmark critique in 1986, sought for emancipation in the acquisition of communicative competence by all subjects that allows them to participate in discourse aimed at liberation from constraints on interaction (1986: 373). He also called on researchers to generate less ideologically value-laden and more universal knowledge about strategic management of organisations (1986: 374). Post modern critiques, such as that by Knights and Morgan (1991), take a leaf out of Shrivastavas book and similarly propound a more constitutive and inclusive approach to strategic planning. They see corporate strategy as a set of discourses and practices which transform managers and employees alike into subjects who secure their sense of purpose (1991:252). So they are saying that managers cannot stand at a passive distance from ideology and impose their personal rationales on an unaware workforce. But for all practical purposes, that is what takes place in the actual workplace a core group of elite members, often known as the executive board, are the only participants of strategic discourse, with more actual manual labour deployed on workers as we go further down the line. This norm looks like it is here to stay, at least for a while. This is because even in the contemporary business scenario, mid0level managers, even if they assume any strategic responsibility, are possibly living an illusion if they feel that they have any decisive say in the actual decision-making process. If we draw from Sun Tzus seminal work on military strategy, The Art of War (1983), we find echoes of this theory, where, as in a military structure, it is the field marshall who is behind the drawing board and the foot soldier who is out there on the ground fighting. The captain, or the mid-level manager, does have a say on the functioning of the troops on the ground. But in actual effect, all he is doing is relaying the strategy of those above him, or the executive board members. The rational and dynamic approaches Before we move on further and investigate the pros and cons of the two approaches under discussion rational and dynamic let us start by taking a brief look at both. The rational approach This is concerned with an organisations ability to achieve the goals that it has set for itself. For this, the organisation must first identify a goal for itself, then define a set of means or objectives that can be employed to achieve this goal, and then set in place a list of activities that help put the objectives in action. An evaluation of the organisation is then based on the number of objectives it achieves in comparison to the number it had planned. The primary motivating factor in this model is profits for the company. As such, the top echelon of decision making under such a system can tend to be more autocratic in nature than in other models. Managers who are inspired by financial statements alone in turn tend to leave their workforce uninspired. In a critical study for his PhD, C.P. Washburn says, What we found is that executives emphasizing rationality in their decision making are less likely to be seen as visionary by their subordinates and more likely to be seen as autocratic. But the more holistic executives are seen as more visionary and less autocratic. But as things stand today, despite the non-holistic nature of a rational approach (Washburn, 2006), it still predominates in the global workplace. This is possibly because of the logical framework that defines a rationale approach. Managers who follow it believe that a precise end to an objective should be sought through equally precise and calculated means, and that focusing their energies on quantifiable activities that can be observed and measured is the best way forward. Even if not quite, in a sense, the rational approach can be summarised in the famous sentence from the 1987 movie Wall Street, Greed, for the want of a better word, is good. The dynamic approach The dynamic approach to strategic planning is aimed more at smaller businesses that lack the necessary revenue to implement all the complicated strategies that a larger organisation can. It was conceived by Edward Pierce, who was at the School of Business and Entrepreneurship at Nova Southeastern University until he retired in the early 2000s. The need for a new approach that moved away from the traditional rational approach was instigated primarily for the benefit for smaller firms. Apart from a basic strategy that is absolutely essential for a line of sustained credit, anything else is a luxury, not least because strategic managers are usually prohibitively expensive for such firms to hire. Moreover, it is not within the financial realm of these smaller organisations to develop a complicated strategy (which in all possibility only a handful of people in the organisation are competent enough to fully comprehend) and then let it gather dust. Unlike the larger organisations that have the means and the resources to leave strategic planning to the hands of a few select individuals in the executive board, these smaller organisations have a more hands-on approach across all levels of management, with even mid-level managers sometimes given a free hand to take decisions. The common necessity for a vision and mission Whether it be a large scale MNC or a small-scale non profit organisation, each must have a vision for the company. Essentially, the vision of an organisation is the single statement that will be able to guide the enterprise across its several strategic business units (SBUs) (Whats In a Vision Statement, 2003). Talk of SBUs brings us to the consideration of another critically important component of strategic planning a mission. There has been much debate over whether vision is more important that mission and it is not our prerogative to enter further debate here. Instead, we can simply define vision as an enterprise view and mission as an SBU view (Whats In a Vision Statement, 2003). Of course, the vision and mission of a particular company are determined by its positioning in the market context. The larger a company, the more complicated is its vision statement and more tedious is the process of achieving its mission. For instance, if we take LG as an example, the parent company has one single vision, but it is modified to suit the needs of its various SBUs such as those for phones, wireless equipment and other electronic appliances. It would not be feasible to assume that this vision statement would apply equally across all the different SBUs within the company. The same would hold true even in the case of a small company, say one that specialises only in making carpets. The vision statement would remain fundamentally the same, but would be applied in different avatars across the different departments that the company might have, such as carpet-manufacturing, the sales division, the training department and so on. Basic differences between the two approaches As we have seen so far, a maximisation of profits is the founding principle behind an organisations rational approach. It is the more traditional way of functioning, and due to its emphasis on increasing revenues as the most important objective, it finds support and has for a long time in Wall Street. But given the vagaries of the market situation not just right now post the financial crisis, but for a while now, there had been the need for a more theoretical approach to strategic planning than simply a total profit = total revenue total cost way of thinking. This is where, apart from the previously discussed need for a holistic approach, Edward Pierce stepped in with his dynamic approach. The rational approach was an all-encompassing one that looked at business through a one-light prism of profit. The dynamic approach, at least according to me, represents a better view of the complex market scenario that is prevalent at present. Large businesses have taken the biggest hit in 60-odd years. Small businesses on the other hand are continuing to face the future with a bright prospect. In such a situation, a low-cost, direct-result-oriented approach to strategic planning suits the needs of a market that is thriving more for smaller businesses than for large conglomerates. But even while saying this, the benefits of a rational approach despite its disadvantages are there for all to see, and have been for many years now. The main amongst these benefits are an improvement in sales and profitability. It should follow then that productivity would see a similar surge through the rational model. This might have held true earlier more than it does now. Right now, it is possibly the inclusive nature of the dynamic approach that can be best utilised to increase productivity. And this increased productivity today apart from a more harmonious working relationship between the different levels of management would lead to more sales and profitability later down the line. The problem that I have with the rational model is that to an extent, it is behind the credit crisis that we faced as a world a couple of years ago. The greed that operated in Wall Street the same greed that is the basis of the rational approach filtered down to Wall Street. The world at large lost its humane characteristic to a degree and hankered after immediate financial returns and benefits, which is what led to the crisis that we faced. The other problem with the rational approach is its non-inclusive nature. If we take the example of any global financial institution that was affected in the crisis be it Lehman Brothers or the Royal Bank of Scotland how much of it was due to the middle-income banker who sits at his terminal in Canary Wharf for example? How much of an idea did he or she have as to what was afoot in the top rungs of the ladder? More significantly, if such people did indeed have an idea of how harmful the trend of borrowing from mortgage brokers was becoming and were not party to it and had feasible arguments to counter and tackle it were their voices heard? I am guessing not, because it takes a middle-income banker with tremendous guts to walk through the door of, say, the vice-president and tell him or her that what he or she is doing possibly for greed if not on a personal level then on the companys behalf could later have ramifications that the entire world at large would reel under. Another advantage that the dynamic approach has over the rational approach is that because it is more human-oriented than the rational approach, which is more finance-oriented, there is a reduced resistance to change. This is of critical importance since in the rapidly evolving global market scenario, continually changing to adapt to situations is the need of the hour. Moreover, since larger multinationals have been exposed post the financial crisis (which is a necessary standpoint for any study of strategic planning in the present scenario) smaller organisations are seeing the light of day more than in the recent past. This means that evolving approaches to strategic planning should be geared in such a way that it suits the needs of these lesser organisations so that they can play their inevitably crucial role in getting the world back to where it was. That is possible more through a dynamic approach to the problem than a profit-oriented rational approach. In fact, the very word, dynamic, is a literary representation of the zeitgeist of our times.
12/23/2019 0 Comments Management EssayOur group feels that this question can be answered in 2 different ways namely, from the manager’s perspective or from the employee’s perspective for each aspect of Ajzen’s theory. 1. Attitude toward the behaviour In this case, the ‘attitude’ here refers to that of the recession. From employees’ perspective – employees will be low in spirits and morale during a recession as they know that there is a high possibility that they will be retrenched by the company. From manager’s perspective – The manager will have a positive attitude about improving the performance of the employees during a recession because if they do not do so, the company will take a long time or never recover from the recession. The manager can improve the employee’s performance by a. Communicating with the employees about the recession and the possible impacts it will have on the workplace. b. Provide continuous feedback which includes occasional recognition and rewards to boost their morale. c. Attribute the employees’ consistent performance and update them on the state of the economy. 2. Subjective norm From employees’ perspective – employees feel that they should not give in their 100% at work in times of a recession as the likelihood of being retrenched is still prominent, so why work so hard? They are pressured by their peers to act in this manner. From manager’s perspective – managers are pressured by the top management (CEOs, shareholders) to think of ways to improve the employees’ performance. Such methods are as mentioned earlier above. 3. Perceived Behavioural Control From employees’ perspective – it is very easy to succumb to peer pressure and not give in their best in their work in times of a recession. From manager’s perspective – managers are completely in charge on their intention to improve the employees’ performance during a recession as it is their job to do so.
12/11/2019 0 Comments Strategic Legal and Social IssuesThe Board of Directors of a corporation are vested with the authority to exercise corporate powers, conduct all business and control and hold all properties of the corporation. The supreme authority insofar as the management of the business regular and ordinary affairs of the corporation is vested with the Board of Directors. With great power however comes great responsibility. Directors act as fiduciaries to the corporation, and once elected they must serve the best interests of the corporation and the shareholders.
This fiduciary duty arises out of the board’s fiduciary relationship with the corporation and shareholders. (Saboor H. Abduljaami p2) The following are the three-fold duties of a director: duty of obedience; duty of diligence and duty of loyalty. Duty of Obedience The duty of obedience mandates that every director of the corporation must do and perform only those acts designed to achieve its mission. The mission and goals of the corporation are indicated in the articles of incorporation. Thus, the director must constantly check whether his action is within the scope of his authority and in pursuance of the goals of the company as indicated in its articles of incorporation. (“Role Playing: When do Board Members Step Over the Lineâ€p2) Further, obedience does not only mean compliance with the rules of the corporation but it also means informing the corporation of any act done in violation of the rules of the corporation. This means that every director is mandated to refrain from violating the internal rules of the corporation. As directors they are also required to inform the corporation of any wrongdoing committed by one director that seriously prejudices the interest of the corporation. Thus, a director who willfully and knowingly votes or assents to patently unlawful acts of another director renders him jointly and severally liable for any damage resulting to the corporation. Duty of Diligence The rule is that every director of the corporation is required to manage the corporate affairs and perform his functions with reasonable care and prudence. As an officer of the corporation, the responsibility of the director towards the corporation is not limited to willful breach of trust or excess of power but extends to negligence. This means that even if there was no unlawful intent or evil motive in performing a corporate act, he can still be held liable if it can be established that he acted negligently. This liability of a director for his negligent acts rests upon common law rule which renders the agent liable who violates his authority or neglects his duty to the damage of the principal. It must be stressed however that the degree of diligence required of a director is relative. The standard of diligence is that which an ordinary prudent director could reasonable be expected to exercise in a like position under similar circumstances. The directors are also bound to observe the limits placed upon their powers in accordance with the Articles of Incorporation or charter, and if they transcend such limit and cause such damage, they incur liability. (Ruben Ladia, p. 164) Thus, if a director willfully performs an act which he knows or ought to know to be unauthorized and beyond the scope of his authority, he is clearly liable for any injury. It is however essential to state that though directors are liable for their negligence which has caused serious prejudice to the corporation, they are not liable for losses due to the imprudence or honest error of judgment. This is the concept of business judgment rule which is a defense on the part of the director to escape any liability for his actions. In principle, this states that questions of policy and management are left solely to the honest decision of the board of directors and the courts are without authority to substitute its judgment as against the director. It is said that “business judgment rule is purely a case law derived concept whereby a court will not review the management decisions of a corporation’s board of directors absent some sort of showing that the board of directors violated their duty of care or loyalty. †(Jon Canfield 1) It must be stressed that directors are not insurers of the property of the corporation or guarantors of the success of the corporation. So long as the director exercised reasonable diligence in the performance of its function the courts will not interfere and render it liable for negligence. Duty of Loyalty It is a general knowledge that there exists a fiduciary relationship between the directors of the corporation and the corporation and its stockholders. As fiduciaries, they are expected to act with utmost candor and fair dealing for the interest of the corporation and without taint of selfish motives. Thus, the directors are not only required to act with reasonable diligence in managing the affairs of the corporation, they are also expected to act with utmost good faith. Thus, the directors of the corporation are expected to first serve the interest of the corporation and their interest later. They are enjoined not to manipulate the affairs of the corporation to the detriment and disregard of the standards of morality and decency. As corporate insiders, the director cannot utilize any inside information they have acquired for their own benefit. He cannot violate the requirements of fair play by doing indirectly what he cannot do directly. Further as directors of the corporation they are not allowed to obtain any personal profit, commissions, bonus or gain for their official actions. Lastly, a director is prohibited from seizing any business opportunity or developing it at the expense and with the facilities of the corporation. Thus, the duty of loyalty requires a fiduciary to act in the best interests of the corporation and in good faith. (Jiangyu Zhu 2) Thus, as corporate officers an undivided loyalty is expected of every director. This fiduciary relationship between the director and the corporation imposes a strict duty to act in accordance with the highest standard which a man of the finest honor and reputation might impose upon himself. It must be stressed that the duty to act with utmost good faith is imposed upon all the directors. The law imposes upon the director liability for violating this duty of loyalty regardless whether the director actually received profit from his undisclosed transaction. This was affirmed in the case of Item Software v. Fassihi. Case of Item Software v. Fassihi. Facts: Item Software entered into transaction with another company. Item Software has a managing director and a marketing director. It specifically provided in its contract with the marketing director that it cannot take advantage of any confidential information it has learned while employed with Item Software. It appears that while Item Software and the other company were engaged in negotiations, its marketing director had been visiting the other company informing it of his intention to form a new company and his intent to transact directly with the other company. The contract between the two companies did not materialize. Item Software later found out about the actuations of its marketing director. He was eventually summarily dismissed from employment and sued by his own company. Issue: whether the respondent should be held liable by the corporation for its act of disloyalty even if it did not profit from its misconduct. Held: It is immaterial whether the director profited from his misconduct. The sole factor to be determined here is that the director committed a breach of its duty when it failed to disclose its transactions with the other company. The duties of a director imposed by law are generally higher than those imposed on an employee because he is more than simply a general manager of the company, he is a fiduciary who, with his fellow directors, is responsible for the success of the company’s business. Section 317 of the Companies Act of 1985 states that: “it is the duty of the director of a company, who is in any way, whether directly or indirectly, interested in a contract or proposed contract with the company to declare the nature of his interest at a meeting of the directors of the company. †(Section 317 Companies Act of 1985) Thus, the marketing director was in breach of his duties both as an employee and as a director and the Item Software was entitled to recover from him damages for breach of that duty suffered as a result of the termination of the contract.  |