Thursday, October 31, 2019

Organizational Resource Management and Business Strategy at Staples Case Study

Organizational Resource Management and Business Strategy at Staples Organization - Case Study Example In regard to Staples organization customers, it is important to note that it serves its customers under its original name in the United States, United Kingdom, Brazil, India, Germany, Portugal, Austria, France, Norway, China, and Italy, while it operates subsidiaries in Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, and Argentina. Staples organization’s customers have comprised of large global and national organizations as well as the wholesale and retail customers (Staples, 2012). The organization has highly customized services and products that are aimed at addressing the unique needs of large global and national organizations. For example, Staples Advantage that operates in most European countries is designed to provide customized services and products to both global and national customers in countries they are operating in (Staples Advantage, 2012). ... However, in order to ensure that a widened customer base receives their purchases conveniently and to facilitate convenience and accessibility of its products and services, Staples organization has involved a number of suppliers in its business (Staples, 2012). It is important to point out that there are criteria that have been set by the organization for a company to become its supplier, as well as legal requirements that must be complied with before a company becomes a supplier. Selection of suppliers is usually based on merit. As already been noted, the Staples organization deals with a wide range of products and services. This is very important considering that it is a listed company and therefore has to enhance its profitability. Staples products include the following: promotional products, technology, office machines, technology, furniture, and business services. These products are available online as well as in Staples stores. In order to boost its sales and enhance profitabil ity, the Staples organization recently launched a new line of products that are designed by Martha Stewart Living Omnnimedia Inc (Dow Jones Newswires, 2012). Competition in the retail industry dealing with office supply is usually immense because of changing customers’ expectations and increasing demands. The main competitors of the Staples organization are Office Depot Inc. (ODP) and Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY). Bloomberg Businessweek (2012) notes that Staples’ capital structure relies on debt level that is comparable to the retail industry norm, that is, at 12.68%, which represents a decline from the previous fiscal year.

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Intellectual Property Essay Example for Free

Intellectual Property Essay Overview of Paper Whether we believe it is right or not, many of us have become accustomed to the fact that a large number people download copyrighted material regularly using Peer-to-Peer file-sharing software. As a result, the entertainment industry is losing billions of dollars in revenue, and is suffering from the infringements of many copyrights. Who should be held responsible for this? Is it the fault of the people who misuse the software or the fault of the software distributors for allowing this to occur? With the recent case of MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., these issues came to an even bigger showdown than the predecessor case of AM Records Inc. V. Napster in which the violations that its users were directly infringing the plaintiffs copyrights, that Napster was liable for contributory infringement of the plaintiffs copyrights and that Napster was liable for vicarious infringement of the plaintiffs copyrights, particularly after it was discovered that multi-platinum artists were finding their songs leaked to the internet long before an album had ever been released. (Vaver) Thusly, the basis of this paper will be to examine the relationship of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing services and how they violate copyrights, patents and generally, intellectual property. Further, I will discuss the impact on software developers, artists and the individual user who participates in utilizing P2P software on their individual and public access computer systems. The primary case that will be featured in this discussion is Metro Gold wyn Mayer (MGM) versus Grokster which took place in 2005. †¢History of participants (MGM) Theater magnate Marcus Lowe, who orchestrated the merger of Metro Pictures Corp., Goldwyn Pictures and Louis B. Mayer Productions, formed MGM in April 1924. With visionary Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg at the helm, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer was a powerhouse of prolific artistry and filmmaking expertise that the studio famously said attracted more stars than are in the heavens. During a golden three decades from 1924 to 1954, the Culver City-based studio dominated the movie business, creating a Best Picture nominee every year for two straight decades. One of the more memorable years at the Academy Awards ® was in 1939 when MGMs Gone With the Wind and MGMs The Wizard of Oz were both nominated for Best Picture. Gone With the Wind took home Best Picture that year, along with 8 other Oscars. The Wizard of Oz secured two Oscars. United Artists was established on July 15, 1919 by Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks and D.W. Griffith and was best known as the company built by the stars. The budding company quickly left an indelible mark on Hollywood, revolutionizing the motion-picture business by promising creative freedom to actors and filmmakers, while offering the filmmakers a share of the films profits. UAs Midnight Cowboy, released in 1969 starring Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight, was the first X-Rated film to be nominated and win an Academy Award ®. It won 3 Oscars ®, including Best Picture. It was changed to an R-rating in 1971. United Artists later joined the MGM family in 1981, and thrived as member of the lions pride.†¨Ã¢â‚¬ ¨MGM boasts a total of 205 Academy Awards ® in its vast library. Among those are 15 Best Pictures. These films include; Rebecca (1940), Best Years of Our Lives (1946), Hamlet (1948), Marty (1955), The Apartment (1960), West Side Story (1961), Tom Jones (1963), In the Heat of the Night (1967), Midnight Cowboy (1969), Rocky (1976), Annie Hall (1977), Platoon (1986), Rain Man (1988), Dances With Wolves (1990), The Silence of the Lambs (1991). Today MGM boasts an impressive library comprised of titles from the United Artists, Orion Pictures, and Goldwyn Entertainment and PolyGram Filmed Entertainment libraries. With approximately 4,100 films and over 10,400 hours of television programming, the library also includes the Rocky and Pink Panther franchises and the celebrated James Bond franchise, the longest running and most profitable series in film history. (MGM) MGM and other entertainment companies (24 in total): A collection of song-writers, music publishers and motion picture studios who â€Å"own or control the vast majority of copyrighted motion pictures and sound recordings in the United States.† Damages were sought as well as an injunction against Grokster for copyright infringement. MGM accused Grokster of distributing software which enabled users to breach copyright restrictions. They insisted that around 90% of data transferred using P2P software was copyrighted, costing them millions of dollars in lost revenues. They also argued that this type of copyright infringement would not occur if Grokster and similar software distributors did not make it possible. †¢History of participants (Grokster) Grokster Ltd. was a privately owned software company based in Nevis, West Indies that created the Grokster Peer-to-Peer file-sharing client in 2001. Grokster Ltd. was rendered extinct in late 2005 by the United States Supreme Courts decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (Duke) Grokster became popular after the collapse of Napster due partly because of its decentralized architecture. Grokster’s client application licensed the FastTrack network technology. Grokster was in a new client software application that was used to connect to the FastTrack and Gnutella’s decentralized P2P networks to enable its users to share files. This network was quite different from Napster in two primary ways: 1) users could search for any file type (they were not restricted to MP3s like in Napster) 2) the network was decentralized. The decentralized architecture prevented any single broken link, such as Napster’s index servers, from bringing down the network. Grokster removed the need for centralized index servers through its use of super nodes. Whenever a powerful computer with a high-speed connection running Grokster connected to the FastTrack network, it automatically became a super node and acted as a temporary indexing server for other clients on the network. It was believed that the decentralized nature of the network would insulate it from legal threats, however, this can also intimate a certain level of culpability in the act of sharing the files. (Giblin) So what is Intellectual Property? According to WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce. Intellectual property is divided into two categories: Industrial property, which includes inventions (or as we commonly know them: patents), trademarks, industrial designs, geographic indications of source (definition of geographic indications: a name or sign used on certain products which corresponds to a specific geographical location or origin {e.g. a town, region, or country}. The use of a geographic indication may act as a certification that the product possesses certain qualities, is made according to traditional methods, or enjoys a certain reputation, due to its geographical origin†¦ example: Vidalia Onions or Florida Oranges†¦) and Copyright, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works like drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs. Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances, producers of phonograms in their recordings, and those of broadcasters in their radio and television programs. The innovations and creative expressions of indigenous and local communities are also Intellectual property, but because they are â€Å"traditional† they may not be fully protected by existing Intellectual property systems. Thusly, when industrial works and/or literary and artistic works are shared without proper compensation, any business, contract holder, artist or individual related to the copyright or patent has the right to seek damages in what is owed to them in relationship to the work in question. MGM V. Grokster – Facts and Decision MGM and several music and motion picture studios brought this suit against Grokster alleging vicarious and contributory copyright infringement for distributing peer-to-peer file-sharing software. According to MGM, over 90% of the material exchanged using Grokster’s file-sharing software is copyrighted material and therefore, copyright infringement occurs every time users exchange the information. MGM contends that Grokster contributes to this infringement by making the file-sharing software available to the public. The district court disagreed with MGM, granting partial summary judgment in favor of Grokster as to the liability that occurred from its present distribution activities. MGM appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit held that Grokster was not liable for contributory infringement because it lacked sufficient knowledge of the infringement and it did not materially contribute to the copyright infringement. According to the court, th e peer-to-peer file-sharing software distributed by Grokster was capable of substantial non-infringing uses. Based on this finding, the court held that Grokster could not be found liable for mere constructive knowledge, but must have had reasonable knowledge of specific infringement at the time it contributed to the infringement. Such knowledge was impossible in this case due to the structure of the network created by the Grokster software. Unlike previous file-sharing networks, Grokster did not maintain a searchable index on a centralized server. Instead, indexes were maintained on the computers of individual users, which prevented Grokster from learning of any infringement until after it had occurred. The network design also prevented Grokster from materially contributing to any copyright infringement because Grokster did not provide the site or facilities for infringement. (Duke) The Ninth Circuit also held that Grokster was not liable for vicarious copyright infringement. According to the court, Grokster lacked the right and ability to supervise the direct infringers. The peer-to-peer file-sharing software did not allow Grokster to block access to infringing users and did not provide Grokster with any opportunity to filter content. While MGM argued that Grokster could alter the file-sharing software to control user access, the court noted this was not a viable option because the software resided on the computers of the users and not on a centralized server. The court ruled against Groksters peer-to-peer file sharing program for computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system, effectively forcing the company to cease operations. The product was too similar in look and feel to Kazaa, which is marketed by Sharman Networks and Morpheus, which was distributed by StreamCast. Grokster along with Morpheus and Kazaa are considered second-generation peer-to-peer file sharing programs because unlike their predecessor Napster these file sharing programs allowed users to trade files directly between one another without these transactions passing through a centralized server. Because Napster maintained this fraction of control over the transaction of files through its server it was ruled illegal because it should have exercised its power over the server to stop the sharing of copyright infringing files. Grokster and this second generation of peer-to-peer file sharing programs sought to avoid this legal obstacle. (Duke) Issues at Stake In a peer-to-peer network each computer is both a server and client. Members need to download only the relevant software file sharing software, free of charge, and they may participate in the network to exchange files, which are more often than not, copyrighted. The owners of copyrights, in this case MGM believed that the software distributors are liable for copyright infringement of the software users: By providing P2P file-sharing software, MGM believe Grokster should be liable for the actions of the individuals who misuse it. A major debate rages over the issue that copyrights, no matter how numerous, do not give the holders a veto over certain advancements in technology. The copyright owners (MGM) relied on the two recognized theories of secondary copyright liability: contributory copyright infringement and explicit copyright infringement. In order for Grokster to be held liable for contributory copyright infringement, it had to be proven that direct infringement of copyrights took place by a primary person, party or group and that Grokster had full knowledge of the infringements. It also had to be determined that they also provided a material contribution to this infringement. For Grokster to be held liable for explicit copyright infringement there had to have been direct copyright infringement by a primary party, a direct financial benefit to the Grokster and an ability on the part of Grokster to supervise those responsible for the infringements. Precedent: The Betamax Case (Universal City Studios, Inc. et al. v. Sony Corporation of America Inc. et al. 1979) In this case it was held that video-recorders should not be banned, even though there is a chance they might be misused by the owner. This technology has substantial non-infringing uses, and so an outright ban could not be justified. Betamax technology was developed with the aim of allowing users to record television that they would have otherwise missed: thus, it’s intended and advertised use was not as an infringer of copyrights. (Vaver) Billions of files are shared across P2P networks each month a large proportion of which are illegal. If Grokster was made responsible for their actions, the amount of files transferred would be expected to reduce significantly as tighter regulations are enforced. If MGM won their case in its entirety, the owners of file-sharing software would be held responsible for copyright infringements of the software users. Even though MGM was attacking a certain type of software, many other technologies could be affected if MGM had been successful. MP3 players, CD burners, external hard-disks, and so on would have been drastically changed to the leisure (and working) time of many individuals due to the basic operating software included with each of those devices and the nature of their portability from machine to machine and platform to platform. (Vaver) A precedent would be set against which similar cases in the future could be examined. This is not a new problem, it has been going on for years between the Entertainment Industry and technology, which allows copyrighted material to be duplicated. The ultimate and unresolvable issue here is a trade-off between intellectual property rights and technological innovations, which will become more and more cloudy as social media and technological innovations churn ever forward and change at such a consuming and rapid pace. Repercussions In the wake of the case filing, Grokster began warning many users on the main page of their website that their IP (internet protocol: A unique string of numbers separated by periods that identifies each computer attached to the Internet) addresses were being stored. Prosecution of the file-sharing individual relies upon what has commonly been referred to as a process of a doe subpoena. If a doe subpoena is utilized, prosecutors are required to gain a series of subpoenas in order to find out the identity of the user behind the IP address in question. Following the shut down of Grokster blogs became inundated with concerned users fearful of the warning however there were and are no reports of the use of doe subpoenas in this case. Research into the effects of warnings such as the one left on Grokster’s website has shown that while these warnings can result in a substantial reduction in online file sharing of individuals, the overall availability of downloadable content did not diminish. Furthermore, researchers cannot account for how much of this reduction in individual file sharing is simply shifted to other file sharing programs. In cases where the RIAA has issued threats the users who conduct the most file sharing usually reduced their daily transactions to levels below the level of prosecution. In effect these warnings have only caused only a brief reduction in overall online file sharing. (Duke) Future Fallout The fear raised by some is that the Grokster findings would impose far too heavy of a burden on technological development, or discourage the dispersment of community information. The Grokster Court attempted to remain mindful of the need to keep from trenching on regular commerce or discouraging the development of technology with lawful and unlawful potential. The Court did not focus on the legality of the P2P networks but rather on the intent and conduct of the defendants. Finding the defendants intent unmistakable, the Court reasoned that such wrongful intent combined with defendants unlawful conduct could make defend- ants liable. Thus, the Court appropriately placed the blame on the malicious con- duct of technology developers rather than on the technology itself. (Grigorian) Under Grokster, businesses [can] continue to develop new technologies provided they do not encourage their users to violate the copyright law. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer from Grokster that P2P file-sharing software and similar technologies remain perfectly legal. This is a legitimate finding because, as the Court pointed out, file-sharing technologies can and have been used for legitimate, non- infringing purposes. For example, universities, business, and government entities use P2P file-sharing software for added efficiency and a more stable platform on which information can be shared [without being susceptible] to the types of attacks that a centralized server faces. (PC Review) Since the Supreme Courts pronouncement of Grokster, many legal scholars are eager to know the role the decision will play in future indirect copyright infringement cases, especially those involving file-sharing technology. Given the questions that remain unresolved after the Grokster decision, like those regarding the proper interpretation and application of Sony, future plaintiffs are likely to first proceed under the active inducement theory and, alternatively, plead contributory copyright infringement. To establish liability under the active inducement theory, plaintiffs must prove that: 1. The defendant took active steps with intent to cause infringement 2. The users of defendants technology did in fact engage in infringing activity. In cases involving P2P technology, proving intent is the trickiest of the two elements. However, copyright holders with legitimate claims will most likely be able to meet this requirement by showing that the conduct and activities of the alleged infringers in developing and marketing their technology would rise to the level of actively promoting the illegal sharing of said works. Courts will then need to examine the alleged infringers business models, marketing and promotional strategy and capability of installing filtering and monitoring systems in order to determine whether sufficient evidence of intent exists. Although it’s unclear as to how many of these factors must be present for a court to find wrongful intent, it is reasonable to determine that the more closely a persons behavior resembles that of a Grokster type entity, the more likely a court is to find liability under the active inducement standard. (Grigorian) This does not indicate that Grokster prefers copyright holders or offers them an automatic win. Some would argue that Grokster makes it more laborious for copyright holders to obtain damages because it forces them to conduct more extensive discovery and incur greater legal expenses in order to successfully prove intent. So while Grokster may appear unreasonably burdensome at first, it actually benefits all parties involved. By setting the burden of proof higher and requiring copyright holders to prove intent, Grokster will likely deter wasteful claims. The newly adopted standard also favors copyright holders because it offers clearer guidelines for those with legitimate claims to seek a legal remedy when their rights are violated. Therefore, in contrast to what some scholars may argue, Grokster successfully maintains a delicate balance between innovation and copyright protection. Conclusion The District Court of California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Grokster, much to MGM’s disappointment. It was held in both courts that Grokster escaped liability for a number of reasons: 1.Grokster did not have constructive, adequate knowledge of the infringements. 2.The software distributed by Grokster was capable of substantial non-infringing uses. 3.There was no central server, thus Grokster could only obtain information of the infringement after it had already happened (i.e. they could not block or prevent copyright infringement because they were not able to directly supervise file transfers). 4.Grokster could not be found responsible for materially contributing to any copyright infringement. 5.Grokster did not directly earn money from this software, as it is free for people to download. Instead, they earned money through advertisements on their website. 6.Grokster was unable to change the software to control user access due to the fact that the software resided on the users’ computers and not on a centralized server. In the United States Supreme Court, the ruling of the appeal favored MGM. The unanimous ruling was that â€Å"one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.† Under these conditions, P2P file-sharing companies could now be sued for copyright infringements. Many as the most important intellectual property case have dubbed this case in decades (PC Review) Due to the extent of disagreement, which arose as to whether Grokster is protected under the Sony Betamax case, a new test has been developed to determine whether the ruling in the Betamax case protects the software in question. The test assesses whether or not the distributors of the software have promoted it as a means of copyright infringement. If such intentions were found, then the ruling of the Betamax case could not be used as precedent. As long as new innovations do not affect existing copyrights, then this ruling should not affect them. It is seen by the Supreme Court as a fair balance between the benefits gained by allowing and promoting technological innovation and the need to respect the intellectual property rights of artists. However, critics do not quite view it in the same light: they are skeptical that the test will work in their favor due to its inherent ambiguity. (PC Review) There are major concerns, however, that despite the good intentions of the court to strike a fair balance between innovation and copyrights, many investors may be put off. If there is a slight chance that a potential project is at risk from this ruling, then ideas are likely to go no further than the drawing board. This could have huge significance, especially regarding the creation of new digital technologies: Any threat of liability, and the idea dies Many argue that file sharing is not the problem, which needs to be addressed here; it is the issue of the individuals that abuse it. On the other hand, trying to hold millions of downloaders responsible for their (numerous) actions would be logistically impossible, and so a more preventative approach has instead been used. (PC Review) Therefore, Groksters message could not be any louder or clearer: innovators should continue to develop new technologies but they must do so with a lawful intent. In devising a new standard for liability, the Court in Grokster provided an alternative mechanism under which copyright holders could seek redress against technology developers and distributors that infringed on their intellectual property rights by proving un-lawful intent. The new standard appropriately focuses on the infringers conduct and intent rather than the technology itself. Works Cited 1. Giblin, Rebecca. Code wars†¯: 10 years of P2P software litigation. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011. Print. 2. Duke University School of Law, â€Å"MGM V. Grokster.† Web. 2004 2005. http://publiclaw.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2004/mgmvgro.html 3. â€Å"The Legality of File Sharing MGM Vs Grokster.† Web. 14 July 2012. http://www.pcreview.co.uk/articles/Consumer-Advice/The_Legality_of_File_Sharing_-_MGM_vs_Grokster/ 4. â€Å"The Official Website for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Studios: Learn More About the History of MGM.† Web. 14 July 2012. http://www.mgm.com/corporate/index.html 5. Vaver, David. Intellectual property rights†¯: critical concepts in law. London: Routledge, 2006. Print. 6. â€Å"WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization.† Web. 14 July 2012. http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en 7. Grigorian, Kristine. MGM vs Grokster: Adopting Patent Law’s Active Inducement Do ctrine and shifting focus to actual infringers. Maryland, Northampton, Journal of Business and Technology, Maryland School of Law, 2005. Print.

Sunday, October 27, 2019

Sociological Perspective: Westboro Baptist Church

Sociological Perspective: Westboro Baptist Church Kyle Mahoney A counterculture is a subculture that rejects the major values, norms, and practices of the larger society, replacing them with a new set of cultural patterns (Thomas); the Westboro Baptist Church is an example of a counterculture due to its rejection of societal norms such as respect for the dead and acceptance of others, especially LGBT people, Jewish people, other Christian people, and African-Americans and black people in general. Their messages of extreme hatred for minorities, Jewish people, and those who do not share the same beliefs as them as well as their extremely aggressive use of media attention to further their hateful agenda, show that they are rebelling against norms, major values, and practices of the larger society, namely respect for others and an inclusive, caring attitude towards minorities. By using media attention and publicity, they are actively and aggressively trying to spread their hateful message and make others feel the same way they do about minorities, other religions, and the LGBT community. In the BBC documentary The Most Hated Family in America, one of the leaders of the group said that the Westboro Baptist Church was not in the process of attempting to convert sinners or grow their church, and that their real purpose was to provoke people and spread the hatred of God, to make people sympathize with the hatred that the Westboro Baptist Church shows. This leader then proceeds to talk about how the churchs goal is to plant the seeds of Gods hatred in the hearts and minds of others (OConnor). Pastor Fred Phelps, after dropping out of West Point and graduating with a ministerial degree from Jones College, began serving as Westboro Baptist Churchs pastor in 1955, and he and his family are the leaders of the church and its actions (Westboro Baptist Church). In 1967 the Westboro Baptist Church became not-for-profit. The group became fairly active in picketing, releasing statements regarding homosexuality and other things they viewed as sins, and anti-semitism in the 1990s onward. The majority of the Churchs membership is constituted of its founder Fred Phelps family. The first time the church truly gained media attention was in 1998, when Westboro picketed the funeral of a gay murder victim named Matthew Shephard. The group had signs saying God hates fags, among other extremely derogatory statements (Anti-Defamation League). The group also attempted to build a granite monument to Shephard, with his name and an anti-gay bible verse on it; their request to build this monument i n a public park was denied (Southern Poverty Law Center). The group truly came into the public spotlight in 2005, when they began to actively picket and protest deceased soldiers funerals, toting signs saying Thank God for dead soldiers and Thank God for IEDs, which brought them national attention from the media (Anti-Defamation League). In March 2006, the Westboro Baptist Church picketed the funeral of Matthew Snyder, who had served in Iraq. Albert Snyder, Matthews father, sued the Westboro Baptist Church for defamation, invasion of privacy, and emotional distress. The case eventually came before the Supreme Court of the United States in 2010 (Southern Poverty Law Center). The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Westboro Baptist Church was within their First Amendment rights while protesting and picketing funerals, and that their hateful speech was protected by their First Amendment rights as well (Snyder v. Phelps ET AL. ). Westboro Baptist Church remains active to th is day, and according to their website they have conducted 59,091 pickets as of this writing (Westboro Baptist Church). The group has also been banned from certain countries after threatening to picket funerals, namely the United Kingdom and Canada (Southern Poverty Law Center). The group is significant in the fact that they receive large amounts of media attention and that they are known for protecting their right to free speech in court, and the group actively challenges laws protecting the United States flag from desecration (Anti-Defamation League). Their ideology is an extremist Christian view that manifests itself as hatred towards basically all groups save the Westboro Baptist Church; focusing on minority groups and military. The sociological perspective is defined as being able to look beyond commonly held beliefs to see the bigger picture and the true meanings behind human actions (Thomas 4-5). A major driver of the Westboro Baptist Church is the fact that almost all of its key members are related, and that the children raised in the church are essentially brainwashed into thinking that they are right and all other groups or opinions are wrong. The group seems to simply spew hatred, but they truly believe that by spreading hateful ideas they are spreading the word of God to everyone (TED). The sociological imagination is defined as being able to see the connection between the larger world and ones personal life (Thomas 4-5 ). This group has affected the world by spreading hateful ideas, and act as a force that the greater culture rallies against, due to the Westboro Baptist Churchs disregard of mores like respecting the dead, the United States flag, and soldiers. Legally, this group is significant for p roving on the Supreme Court level that their picketing is legal and protected by the first Amendment (Snyder v. Phelps ET AL. ), along with their challenging of laws that protect the flag from desecration, and the group raises questions about the limits of first Amendment rights. Ethnocentrism is defined as viewing ones own culture or group as superior to another culture or group (Thomas 35), and by viewing American culture as superior it is easy to see why the Westboro Baptist Church is seen as a counterculture. The American people value diversity, it is often stressed in our society that it is good to be different or that everyone is unique; the Westboro Baptist Church rebels against this value in diversity, stating that other groups are inherently inferior as designed by God, and that these inferior groups deserve to die and burn in hell (Westboro Baptist Church). American culture also values the flag, which Westboro Baptist Church is known for desecrating and overturning laws protecting the flag. Most of all American culture values veterans, active duty soldiers, and the deceased, which Westboro Baptist Church actively pickets with signs reading Thank God for IEDs among other travesties (Westboro Baptist Church), showing that they are rebelling against ma jor mores that are valued by American culture. The groupss supremacist attitude, along with their hatred of homosexuals, the Jewish, and blacks, define them as a counterculture which rebels against the mores regarding diversity and freedom for all. Their hatred for soldiers and even the practice of funerals only serves to further prove they are a counterculture; by picketing funerals of soldiers the group is rebelling against major values and mores of society (Anti-Defamation League). Cultural relativism is defined as judging a culture by their own standards rather than imposing another cultures standards on a culture (Thomas 36). By applying cultural relativism to the Westboro Baptist Church, it is easy to see that the groupss member believe they are justified, and that what they are doing may be hateful, but it is hateful because God wants the group to spread hate. The group views itself as the only real religion that God will recognize, and views all other groups, even fellow Christians, as sinners destined for hell. The group feels that it is justified in its hatred of homosexuality because homosexuality is seen as a sin in the bible (Westboro Baptist Church). The group pickets funerals because they believe that funerals are where people will be most receptive to their ideas, and the group pickets soldiers funerals more often because they believe that the military is sinful and that the military is protecting the rights of homosexuals (Westboro Baptist Church) . The group is so invested in what they believe to be Gods divine mission for them that they do not care if they receive hate in return, and they believe that they are justified in disregarding major values, practices, and norms of society. Personally, as someone who was raised with a Protestant church background, as well as someone possessing black, Jewish, veteran, Catholic, and homosexual family members, I abhor and reject the practices of the Westboro Church; I see their actions as extremely disrespectful and devoid of anything that God would support, as the bible speaks more about inclusivity and loving sinners than spreading hatred. Although by taking a culturally relative view of the groups actions, I believe they are too extreme in showing that homosexuality is a sin, and as someone who no longer identifies as Christian I believe that people should be allowed to love who they want regardless of gender. I am not by any means a theologian or an ardent Christian, but I still believe that the Westboro Baptist Churchs extremist views, although protected by the first Amendment, are to be abhorred. I also strongly believe that the dead, especially those who died in active duty, should be held to the highest levels of r espect and honor, and I believe that the greater American culture is in concurrence with me in this belief. Westboro Baptist Church is important to the world because it has a global impact and brings issues regarding free speech and how far extension of free speech goes, and I hope that in the future the Westboro Baptist Church will never come to represent the majority opinion of Americans, because their hatred of others is disgusting. I believe that taking a certain degree of ethnocentrism is necessary when dealing with the Westboro Baptist Church because their ideals are so hateful that they can bring out hatred in others, and ethnocentrism acts as a barrier to stop their hatred from spreading. To conclude, Westboro Baptist Churchs extremist Christian views are so opposite to the major mores of American society that it makes them a counterculture, and the Westboro Baptist Church is an extremely hateful group that hopefully will not stand the test of time. References The Most Hated Family in America. Dir. Geoffrey OConnor. Perf. Louis Theroux. 2007. Documentary. Anti-Defamation League. Westboro Baptist Church. n.d. Archived Website. 10 March 2017. Snyder v. Phelps ET AL. . No. 09-751. Supreme Court of the United States. 6 October 2010. Court Case. Southern Poverty Law Center. SPL Center. n.d. Website. 7 March 2017. TED. I Grew Up in the Westboro Baptist Church. This is why I left. February 2017. Video. Thomas, W Laverne. Sociology- The Study of Human Relationships. Austin: Holt,Rinehart, Winston, 2003. 39, 4-5, 35, 36. Textbook. Westboro Baptist Church. God Hates Fags. n.d. Website. 10 March 2017.

Friday, October 25, 2019

A Comparison of Two Barbecue Restaurants Essay -- comparison compare c

The Best Barbecue in the South    Barbecue is one of my favorite foods. I have always enjoyed going into some greasy barbecue dive, listening to the blues, and feeling pretty cool. Two joints where I have eaten are Big D's Piggy Strut Soul Pit Bar-B-Q in Clemson, South Carolina, and Hy's Deli right across from the School campus. Even though both of these restaurants pride themselves on their barbecue, Big D's is obviously the better. As I walked into the Piggy Strut for the first time, I immediately noticed the different atmosphere. The sign at the entrance said, "Seat yourself if you want to eat here!" As I looked around, I saw some fat guy in the corner really jamming on an electric guitar. (I later learned that was Big D himself.) After much deliberation I decided to sit at the bar. Here, I ordered my sandwich and sat next to the cook after he made it. We watched cartoons for about an hour. Hy's Deli, on the other hand, had a sign that read "Please feel free to seat yourself" in the entrance. Next, I noticed everyone staring at me. There were ten or twelv... A Comparison of Two Barbecue Restaurants Essay -- comparison compare c The Best Barbecue in the South    Barbecue is one of my favorite foods. I have always enjoyed going into some greasy barbecue dive, listening to the blues, and feeling pretty cool. Two joints where I have eaten are Big D's Piggy Strut Soul Pit Bar-B-Q in Clemson, South Carolina, and Hy's Deli right across from the School campus. Even though both of these restaurants pride themselves on their barbecue, Big D's is obviously the better. As I walked into the Piggy Strut for the first time, I immediately noticed the different atmosphere. The sign at the entrance said, "Seat yourself if you want to eat here!" As I looked around, I saw some fat guy in the corner really jamming on an electric guitar. (I later learned that was Big D himself.) After much deliberation I decided to sit at the bar. Here, I ordered my sandwich and sat next to the cook after he made it. We watched cartoons for about an hour. Hy's Deli, on the other hand, had a sign that read "Please feel free to seat yourself" in the entrance. Next, I noticed everyone staring at me. There were ten or twelv...

Thursday, October 24, 2019

A Great Law of Human Action

Truong Th? H? ng Nhung MSV: 08D170334 *** Managers can find an effective way to delegate work successfully thanks to reading the chapter Tom Sawyer whitewashing the fence in the famous novel of â€Å"Tom Sawyer†, written by Mark Twain because Tom Sawyer discovered a great law of human action, without knowing it – namely, that in order to make a man or a boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain. When being assigned to paint the fence, Tom felt â€Å"life to him seemed hollow, and existence but a burden†. Tom wanted to hire some children walking on the street to do his work but he found that he didn’t have enough money to buy their â€Å"free afternoon†. At this dark and hopeless moment, a magnificent idea raised in his mind, instead of complaining, he returned to his work with pleasure. Soon came a boy, named Ben Rogers by and laughed at Tom because he could not go swimming instead he had to work. Tom pretended to be so interested in his work, which made Ben curious to try the work. â€Å"It suits Tom Sawyer†, â€Å"I reckon there ain’t one boy in a thousand, maybe two thousand, that can do it the way it’s got to be done†, these sayings urged Ben to ask for whitewashing the fence a bit. Tom surrendered reluctantly his brush to Ben in exchange for an apple core. Gradually, more and more boys came to whitewash the fence with Ben, the duty of Tom was just sitting under a shade tree, managing the activity. In such a short time, the fence put on â€Å"a new shirt† with the pleasure of both Tom and the children. From the story, we can withdraw two useful delegation skill. First, you need to know how to make your task inviting. No one wants to take a task which you are always grumbling about it. Tom would never have invited the children to take his work if he had been always complaining about the boreness of the work. Second, when someone asks to help you with your work, you should pretend to hold back, as Tom did, but do allow them to help you in the end. If so, he will find that it’s not easy to take the job, and so appreciate it more highly. Last, but not least, you need to monitor the one to whom you delegated the job. In the whole, the great law of human action really reflects the fact about all people’s need. People always want to show that they have abilities to fulfill a difficult task which many people are unable to do.

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

The Role of Leadership in Organisational Change

In discussing the role of leadership in organisational change, one must first understand the rudiments of leadership and theories that surround it, understand what change is and the essential qualities that a leader must possess to bring about change.Defining LeadershipThere is much literature and research in the areas of leadership and management with many writers differentiating the two. A common conclusion is that a good manager may not be a good leader. So what is the difference between them? French, R., et al, (2011) says that while managers engage in solving problems and supervising work, leaders do not just instruct people on what to do. Leaders inspire and motivate the people who follow and support them thereby creating opportunities for the long-term. An environment where leadership is mentioned a lot and developed is the military. However, the command-and-control â€Å"leadership† where an officer barks orders to his troops is not leadership because he is legally aut horised to do it (Cohen, 2010).In support of this, Buchanan and Huczynski (1985) say that it is a â€Å"social process† where one person influences other’s behaviours without using threats of violence. By the latter definition, we can surmise that what goes on in the army is certainly far from leadership as threats are a way of life in the military! In the case of the military officer, he is said to be endowed with Formal Leadership, giving him formal authority over his men. When a staff has access to resources, information or has specialised skills, he may be viewed as an Informal Leader as he exerts influence over others who may not be their subordinates nor even be in the same department as them (French, et al, 2011).So, while managers make things happen because the company says they are authorised to do so, leaders achieve the company’s objectives by influencing their colleagues or subordinates to co-operate (Rosen Bach & Taylor, 1993). Lussier & Achua (2007 ) say that mutual influence between a leader and those he leads reach their organisational goals by making changes together. According to Fielder (1967), the acid test of a leader is his ability to achieve greater performance for his organisation. Hence, studies of leadership must be related to how the leader improves management control strategies and how he regulates work place behaviour (Thomson & McHugh,  2002).According to Cohen (2010), there are 8 laws that he termed â€Å"universal laws† which forms the heart of leadership. Though these 8 things that leaders must do are simple, the absence of one can make a difference between success and failure. Although success cannot be guaranteed, abiding by these 8 laws, one can increase the chances of success: 1.Maintaining absolute integrity2.Being technically competent 3.Communicating expectations 4.Show exemplary commitment 5.Expect positive results 6.Looking after the interest of your people 7.Putting duty before self 8.Lead ing from the frontSECTION 2 : Theories on LeadershipAccording to Bass (1990), the three basic theories of leadership are the Trait Theory, Great Event Theory and Transformation Theory. Robbins (1996) had a different view and wrote that the three theories important to leadership development are Trait Theory, Behaviour Theory and Situational Theory. French, et al, (2011) summarised and divided the theories on leadership into 2 categories: Traditional Theories and New Theories. Traditional Theories are further grouped into Theories on leader traits and behaviours and situational leadership. New theories refer to Charismatic Leadership and Transformational Leadership. See diagram below.Trait theories on leadership were developed from research which tried to identify attributes that great leaders were born with which differentiates them from non-leaders. How effective these leaders are depends on the influence the leader wields over his subordinate’s performance, satisfaction and overall effectiveness (Derue, et al, 2011). Galton’s (1869) view that these immutable traits are only found in leaders born with them and they cannot be developed has been challenged and criticized by many for over a hundred years. However, research has continued on linking personality traits on effectiveness of leaders and showed that successful leaders possess  personality traits that impact their success.This helps organisations in their selection, training and development of potential leaders (Derue et al., 2011). In Bass’s (1990) Great Event Theory, leaders are created when great changes or crisis happen driving certain characteristics to be forged in individuals, enhancing their performance. This theory predisposes that leadership creation is still involuntary and not proactive unlike the Transformational Leadership Theory where anyone can learn skills on how to lead. It would appear that leaders are not ‘born’ but they are shaped by their environm ent, including upbringing and career. (French, et al, 2011)Criticisms of the trait theories led to the development of behaviour theories theorizing that actions and behaviour exhibited by a leader and not his personality is what identifies him as one. In late 1940s, University of Michigan conducted studies concluding that there are 2 types of leadership; Worker-oriented leadership and Task-oriented leadership. While the former is focussed on employee welfare, the latter concentrates on achievement of organisational objectives. Behavioural theory explains leadership vis-à  -vis the behaviour of leaders but does not consider the situation or the environment that the leader is operating in. The criticism is that given different situations, the same leadership behaviours may not be observed.Shortcomings of the behaviour theories led to Situational Contingency Theories of Fiedler (1967), House (1974), Hersey and Blanchard (1988) and Kerr and Jermier (1978). Horner (1997), a situational theorist, says that an effective leader should be able to adapt his leadership style according to the work situation he is in. The leadership styles identified by House’s (1974) Path-Goal theory are Directive, Supportive, Participative and Achievement-oriented styles. Contemporary leadership theorists like House (1974) and Conger and Kanungo (1998) researched on Charismatic Leadership.They wrote that certain attitudes and attributes can be bundled together to determine charisma in a leader. What they do and how they do it to influence the desired actions from their followers is how charismatic leaders are successful as leaders (French, et al, 2011). Charisma is a key component of transformational leadership and as such, many of its characteristics are also found in successful transformational leaders. So while charismatic leaders may not be transformational leaders, transformational leaders need to be charismatic to achieve their mission of change (DuBrin, 2010).DuBrin  (20 10) wrote that transformational leaders display attributes that distinguish them from others. Some attributes include charisma, high emotional intelligence, visioning skills, communication skills, give feedback, recognize subordinate’s achievements, practice empowerment, innovative and high moral reasoning. Bass (1990) distinguished between Transactional and Transformational leadership saying that the former has to do with daily communications and exchanges between a leader and his subordinates. This is usually task-based and routine. Transformational leadership, on the other hand, enables subordinates to broaden their goals and elevate performance beyond expectations with the use of charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration.SECTION 3 : Organisational ChangeThe mother of all clichà ©s, â€Å"The only constant in life is change†, sums up rather neatly that all organisations, large or small, simple or complex, will face changes wi thin itself and in its environment. Writers have consensus that at this day and age, change is a much larger issue than decades past as the rate of change, especially for technological change, is increasing at an exponential rate (Balogun and Hope Hailey, 2004; Burnes, 2004; Senior, 2002). Being omni-present in organisations at all levels, the importance of the leader’s ability to assess its present stage, evaluate it against its desired state, define its performance gaps and plan organisational changes to reach the desired end cannot be emphasized more (Burnes, 2004).Burnes (2004) goes on to say that organisational strategy and change are inseparable. According to Moran and Brightman (2001), because of the continually changing needs of stakeholders internally and externally, a good leader will also be continuously planning the organisation’s direction, its capabilities and structure to meet those changes. Because organisational change is of paramount importance, the s kills that a leader must have to effect changes successfully are highly sought after (Senior, 2002). In fact, managers today may find that their primary task in an environment of globalisation, technological innovation, constantly changing demographics, deregulation and knowledge explosion, is to provide leadership for organisational change (Graetz, 2000)Organisational change can be planned or unplanned. Unplanned changes occur  spontaneously without any conscious effort on the part of the manager to effect change (French, et al, 2011). It is usually due to changes in the conditions of the environment and is reactive in nature. Planned change happens when the manager takes proactive measures to address a performance gap to get to desired outcomes that meet organisational goals and objectives. Although it is generally accepted that in a highly competitive environment, change is a necessity to survive, Balogun and Hope Hailey (2004) found that about 70 per cent of all plans for orga nisational change fail. According to Dunphy and Stace (1993), there are 4 characteristics in the scale of the change. They are Fine Tuning, Incremental Adjustment, Modular Transformation and Corporate Transformation.In Fine Tuning, the leader makes very small changes to processes, human capital, structure and strategy so they work coherently to reach the organisational goal. It is usually done within the divisional or departmental level and is referred to as convergent change (Nelson, 2003) Similar to fine tuning, Incremental Adjustment involves making slightly more changes to managerial processes, corporate strategies and structures but not to the extent of radical change (Senior, 2002). The difference is that the changes are bigger here. In Modular Transformation, the scale of change has move from being intra-departmental to departmental-wide or division-wide alignments.However, change in this category has not reached organisation-wide, which is discussed next. Major changes to ke y executives, restructuring of a division and downsizing a department are examples (Dunphy & Stace, 1993). Finally, Corporate Transformation which encompasses radical changes in mission, vision and core values, major strategic direction shifts, organisational restructuring and changes in top management and key appointments, is the largest of the 4 types of change (Dunphy & Stace, 1993). The key difference between corporate and modular transformations is that the former is organisation-wide, which means that every person in the organisation is affected. SECTION 4 : The Process of Change Beckhard & Gleicher (1969) wrote on a formula for change. This formula is sometimes referred to as Gleicher’s Formula. The formula shows the forces  that drive change and the aims to predict when change will be successful.This formula explains that leaders in an organisation need to be firstly, unhappy with how things are going and must know where they want to head towards. If D is absent, th en the organisation may be complacent and may not want to move from their position. D without V will mean that the organisation has no direction for change. Even if D and V are present, without taking the first positive step, change will just be an idea; hence, action must be taken.Therefore the product of D, V and F cannot be zero which means that any of the 3 values cannot be zero. If any of the 3 is absent, the drive to change will not overcome resistance. The other factor to consider is the magnitude of D, V and F against the magnitude of R. The product of D, V and F must be greater than R for there to be change. The greater the product, the greater the probability that change will happen. However, this formula does not guarantee that the change will be successful. For change to be successful, change leaders or change agents must have attributes to lead change.There are many reasons why people resist change and it usually has to do with the fear of the unknown. As a result, they will find ways to slow change down or sabotage it so it does not happen (Lines, 2004). Instead of trying to overcome resistance, leaders should take it as a form of feedback and understand why the employee perceives threats to win them over and achieve change objectives (French, et al, 2011).SECTION 5 : Phases of ChangeThe work of Kurt Lewin on phases of planned change is oft quoted and still very relevant today. He says that the 3 phases are â€Å"Unfreezing†, â€Å"Changing† and â€Å"Refreezing† and the leader should be sensitive in each of these phases (Lewin, 1952). â€Å"Unfreezing† or preparation phase prepares the ground for change. Leaders will have convinced themselves of a need for change using the Formula for Change. What they have to do now is to enable his followers to feel the same need and reduce resistance to change.French, et al, (2011) referred to this phase as similar to â€Å"generating energy for transformation† in Miles†™ (1997) framework for planned organizational change leadership. Lewin’s unfreezing phase also includes what Miles refers to as â€Å"Developing a vision of the future†. The leader needs to communicate this  vision effectively to his followers and ensure buy-in for his changes to succeed. The 8-stage process of change by Kotter (1996) lists the first 4 stages as : †¢Establishing a Sense of Urgency†¢Creating a Guiding Coalition †¢Developing a Vision and Strategy †¢Communicating the Change VisionKotter refers to these 4 stages as â€Å"defrosting† which essentially means unfreezing. He says that managers sometimes skip these 4 stages and go headlong into restructuring or downsizing and eventually face insurmountable roadblocks or change that is not sustainable, that is, change that will not stick. The next phase of change, â€Å"Changing†, according to Lewin (1952), refers to the nitty-gritty nuts and bolts of change like re-structur ing, re-organisation, reshaping culture, training and development to build competencies required to fulfil the new vision. According to Miles (1997), this is referred to as â€Å"aligning the internal context†. Kotter (1996), on the other hand, splits this phase into 3 more stages in his 8-stage process of creating major change: †¢Empowering Broad-based Action†¢Generating Short-term Wins †¢Consolidating Gains and Producing more ChangeLewin’s (1952) final phase, â€Å"Refreezing†, is where leaders evaluate results and either makes modifications to improve results from the change or reinforce outcomes for achieving change objectives. The purpose of refreezing is so that change can be permanent and will â€Å"stick†. Miles refers to this as â€Å"Creating a transformation process architecture† which involves having feedback and communication mechanisms, support, education mechanisms and coordination mechanisms. This stage coincides with Kotter’s final stage in his 8-stage process called â€Å"Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture†.SECTION 6 : Leadership and Organisational ChangeSetting direction, giving inspiration and ensuring that lasting change is implemented organisation-wide is a key role that all leaders play. Good leadership and management of change is a critical ingredient in organisational change because it is essentially a people issue and human nature is such that its first instinct is to resist change (Coburn, 2006). Lack of effort, too great a change over too short a time and emphasis on top management rather than engaging lower levels are key reasons for failure to execute change programmes (Manikandan, 2010).It is critical to understand that organizations consist of complex human interactions such that all intended change needs to be handled with sensitivity. Change initiatives fail not because of the lack of intelligent leaders or noble causes but due to the lack of emotional buy-in from stakeholders. So leaders of change need to have skills and competencies to ensure successful change initiatives. Buchanan & Boddy (1992) grouped 15 core competencies and skills into 5 clusters:Diagram 1 : Buchanan & Bodd’s Clustering of Skills and Competencies Buchanan & Boddy (1992) grouped the skills and competencies into clusters of activities. However, upon analysis, they can be grouped into 2 broad categories; Competencies & Attributes of good leaders and Communication & EQ Skills of good leaders. This is illustrated in the diagram below.Diagram 2 : Grouping Skills into Competencies and Skills Competencies & AttributesA successful leader must be sensitive to his environment, including but not limited to being aware of market conditions, intra-company politics, conflicting goals of different departments, how the sum of parts in an organisation works together to achieve its goals (helicopter viewpoint) and who the power brokers are within the organisation. Having thi s competency will enable the change leader to appraise the status quo and determine the gap that needs to be closed in order to reach the new vision. Hence, the leader’s comprehension and clarity of his vision will be enhanced. â€Å"Flexibility† and â€Å"Tolerance of ambiguity† might well be two sides of the same coin. Not all changes will go according to plan nor all reactions to change, especially resistance, are predictable.Hence, a good leader will have a fair amount of tolerance of the unknown and in exhibiting this, be flexible enough to modify his change plans to reach his objectives and to minimise resistance to change. Finally, the leader must have enthusiasm as he is the change agent. He is the champion of that change and if he cannot  show that he believes in it and is behind it 100%, he will not be able to get buy-in for it. Communication & EQ SkillsThe skills listed in this box are all related to skills in effective communications but tempered w ith a good measure of emotional quotient (EQ). As discussed above, the challenges in change management are mainly found in the management of people. Hence, EQ in communication is key to success. Effective communication where the message is conveyed accurately from the sender to the receiver is a basic requirement of any leader. However for a change leader, communicating while exercising EQ will make the message more acceptable to the recipient and hence enhance successful change.This is especially true when a leader wants to ‘sell’ the idea of change or when he ‘negotiates’ for a win-win solution to effect changes. He has to use all his ‘influence’ and exhibit charismatic leadership to win the support of his colleagues and subordinates. How he does this may be through the use of ‘motivation’. Using his EQ, the leader will be able to empathise with his subordinates and understand their fears and concerns know what motivates them and use this in his effort to garner support or reduce resistance.The leader needs to use his ‘networking’ skills to access resources within and outside the company in order to implement his change plan. One must not forget that in transformational change, everyone and every department in an organisation will be affected. Hence the leader cannot work in isolation. Finally, using ‘teambuilding’ skills, the leader can build a cohesive force to successfully implement all the changes that the organisation wants to put in place and make those changes stick or in the words of Lewin (1983), â€Å"Refreeze†.SECTION 7 : ConclusionFor over a century, behavioural scientists, psychologists and even sociologists have studied leadership, trying to define, explain and even predict situations when leadership qualities and attributes will be displayed. They have tried to explain if leadership is inborn or a result of the external environment. Whether it is inherent in p ersonality or whether it can be learnt and developed. Contemporary theorists conclude that although certain traits that are inborn are those found in great  leaders, other attributes of good leadership can indeed be developed.Organisational change, inescapable as it were, is a challenge for leaders. Leaders need to prepare the ground and communicate the changes needed to move the organisation forward (Unfreeze), make the changes with sensitivity and exercise EQ (Change) and get buy-in and support for the changes to make them stick (Refreeze). To execute change plans, leaders need to have the communication skills, EQ, competencies and attributes required for transformational change.