Bystanders in Situations of Bullying Motivations for...

Introduction/Background Bullying can be experienced in several forms such as physical, verbal, social or cyber. All bullying is composed of three specific concepts—causing their victims harm, possessing greater power than their victims and repetition (Oh Hazler, 2009). Bystanders play perhaps the most vital role in bullying (Oh Hazler, 2009). Bystanders can help the bully (‘assistants’ or ‘reinforcers’), remain passive and non-interceptive (‘outsiders’) or they can be ‘defenders’, which are individuals who intervene using prosocial behaviours, meaning that they voluntarily act in ways that benefit others (Oh Hazler, 2009; Thornberg, 2007). Statistics suggest bystander’s use only 25% of their time to intervene and defend the bully†¦show more content†¦Recent studies that have analyzed the behaviour of bystanders, in situations of bullying, have put a large emphasis on the predictors of bystander actions and the reasons why they are passive in such situations. Predictors such as gender, grade, past experiences with bullying, type of bullying witnessed and friendship dynamics have displayed some significant trends in the reactions of bystanders (Oh Hazler, 2009; Trach, Hymel, Waterhouse and Neale, 2010). For example, researchers identify strong and consistent trends that indicate girls are more likely to support victims with positive actions (Oh Hazler, 2009; Trach, Hymel, Waterhouse and Neale, 2010). The purpose of this study is contrary to previous studies and will take a particular interest in the motivations for prosocial behaviour in terms of direct or indirect intervention. Bystanders who take a direct intervention approach often intervene by discouraging the bully, helping the victim, or redirecting the situation, whereas those who use indirect intervention report the bullying to an adult or teacher, talk to a friend, or get other bystanders to help (Trach, Hymel, Waterhouse N eale, 2010). However, it is interesting to consider that the intervention approach bystanders chose to take will be influenced by the policies, responses to victims and peerShow MoreRelatedBully5482 Words   |  22 Pages------------------------------------------------- Bullying From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For the Wikipedia guidance essay, see  Wikipedia:WikiBullying Bullying is detrimental to students’ well-being and development.[1] Bullying  is the use of force or  coercion  to  abuse  or  intimidate  others. The behavior can be habitual and involve an imbalance of social or physical  power. It can include verbal  harassment  or  threat, physical  assault  or coercion and may be directed repeatedly towards particular victims, perhaps on groundsRead MoreHalimbawa Ng Term Paper6581 Words   |  27 PagesDON SERVILLANO PLATON MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL Sta. Cruz Tinambac Camarines Sur S/Y 2012-2013 The Effect of Bullying In The School to Students of Don Servillano Platon Memorial High School Janice Tamayo Inocencio (Researcher) Mrs. Adelaida Espejo (English Professor) Acknowledgements I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the special people who have extended their assistance for the

Florida Lottery Essay Example For Students

Florida Lottery Essay Lottery, Good or Bad? Is the lottery a good idea? Some may argue that playing the lottery is a bad idea, and it is just another form of organized crime. I have also heard that playing the lottery is a â€Å"stupidity tax. † I will argue that playing the lottery is a good idea, for those that choose to play it, and has many benefits for us all. I am sure you have heard the saying, â€Å"When you play, we all win! † Granted, about half of all monies spent on buying lottery tickets go to paying out prizes from a winning lottery ticket. But then again that is why people play the lottery, to win. About a third of the earnings from the sale of lottery tickets contribute to public education expenses. And about a tenth of the lottery sales go towards the retailers. Surprisingly, only about five percent of the lottery earnings go towards the cost of the game and towards the operating expenses. Many states have adopted a system where the main purpose of the lottery is to provide funds for, and to improve the states’ educational system. For example, the Florida lottery has contributed more than $21 billion dollars toward its Educational Enhancement Trust Fund. Like many other states, Florida has a scholarship for high school students that can help pay for college. Florida calls this the Bright Futures Scholarship, which can pay up to 100% of your college education. The Bright Futures Scholarship program is funded by the Florida Lottery and has helped send more than 450,000 students to college since 1997. Lottery funds are also spent on salaries and benefits for instructors and classroom materials such as textbooks. Lottery funds also provide schools the flexibility to continue with valuable programs and services offered to students. The lottery can also play a role in helping to support small businesses. Lottery retailers earn a percentage from their ticket sales. For example, in New Jersey the lottery returned over 140 million dollars in commissions to support chain stores, supermarkets, pharmacies, convenience stores and small businesses throughout the state. The lottery retailers of these small businesses are also eligible to receive tax incentives from the government. And believe it or not, there are people that hit the â€Å"jackpot† and can win a large sum of money. Depending on the person, the money can be spent however hey like. There are many lottery winners that donate money to their favorite organization, local churches, shelters in their communities, to their local park, etc. I see the lottery as a very good thing for communities everywhere. There are many that choose not to play because they see it as a gamble or a waste of money. In reality, those who play help our community in several ways. There is nothing wrong with playing the lottery, or buying a scratch off every now and again, and should not be seen as a bad thing. You should think about the benefits.

How Stable Was the Tsarist Autocracy in 1914 Essay Example

How Stable Was the Tsarist Autocracy in 1914 Essay By the beginning of the Great War, Russia was already deeply divided, and the political structure so fragile, overstrained and vulnerable, that it is hard to imagine that it could have survived even without war (Fitzpatrick) Soviet historians, who, at the time of writing, were seeking to justify their regime, would agree with Sheila Fitzpatrick that by 1914, Russias regime was already dead and it was inevitable that the forthcoming revolution of 1917 would take place.However liberal historians, with the aim of destroying the image of the Communist regimes, have tended to usually agree with Services equation, No war. No revolution and that the four year conflict was like a thunderbolt which prevented Russia from following the democratic path to modernisation as her Western allies had done. However, it is the Revisionist point of view that stands in equal balance stating that war should be seen as a kind of Final Judgement' (Figes) to produce a verdict on all the events that have occur red in Russia prior to that. The overthrow of the Romanovs grew likelier as year succeeded year (Service) but it was the war that was the final nail in the coffin for Russias liberal and democratic hopes to equality, freedom and peace.Students of revolutions have observed that, as a rule, the grievances of the people look backward not forward. Rather than clamour for new rights, people complain of being unjustly deprived of ancient rights, real or imagined (Pipes) and in Russia at the time the peasants continued to express the paternal and unequivocal economic demand for the abolition of noble land ownership.And as Russias stability depended on the peasant (Pipes), any uncertainty in the peasants life had far reaching consequences for the stability of the whole of society. Whilst liberals believe that the reforms introduced post- 1905 promised a solution to rural poverty and land hunger, which they also claim were the two reasons responsible for peasant unrest leading up to the war, and that the rural economy was on the ascending path to modernisation stability, the Revisionists cast many shadows of doubt as to the effectiveness of Stolypins reforms. Figes comments that in fact, long before 1914, Stolypins land reforms had [already] ground to a halt. He goes further to point out that Stolypin himself stated that it would take at least 20 years to transform Russian society, but according to the rate of progress, Figes argues it would have taken the best part of a century for the regime to create the strong agrarian bourgeoisie that it had evidently decided to stake its future.His conclusion on the subject is that the land enclosure movement, had, like all other tsarist reforms, come too late. This is in stark contrast to the liberals who have pointed out that after the immediate pressure was relieved by the abolition of redemption dues and the introduction of several tax breaks, the proposed land reforms would create a smooth path for sustained growth in agricu ltural productivity. They focus their argument on the fact that the wager on the strong and sober held enormous potential benefits such as private enterprise, consolidated farmsteads, a lower population and a mobile labour force. In the words of Acton, modern techniques would replace the archaic implements. They then imply that social peasant disturbances fell in the pre- war years and this pointed to peaceful development, and with each year the peasants interest and support for the status quo would grow and if a sustained period of peace and tranquillity was delivered, the tension in the peasant would peter out and eventually cease. For the liberals of this world, 1905 marked a turning point.Whilst one tends to agree with the liberals in saying that the economic record of tsarism was not unimpressive, neither was it impressive. For most revisionists, 1905 was in fact a turning point but not towards peaceful democratic recovery but towards instability and uncertainty. They shatter a ny illusions the democracy- loving and communist- hating liberals hold and inject into the picture a doze of cold reality. They see the traditional liberal view of revolution as a chance product of war (Acton) as unacceptable. They not only argue that in the years leading up to 1914, peasant land hunger and militancy remained intense but state even further that social unrest came from not only those whose standard of living was horrifically low, but from the more economically rational and dynamic peasant (a fact the liberals never associated with the peasant).Mass disturbance evidence of Soviet historians, according to Revisionists is at best shaky, and those findings were based on unreliable evidence and sources. While liberals dismiss these figures altogether, Revisionists appear more eager to examine the evidence before concluding. It is hard for a professional historian to dismiss 20, 000 social disturbances between 1907- 14 whilst there were exceptional harvests and a strong re covery of the grain price.Modernisation was taking place, even in the countryside, despite all the cries from the Soviets of semi- feudal exploitation on the farm. New land was being used, new crops seed strains and rotations systems were introduced, new farming equipment was being utilised and there was an increase in yield per hectare. But Revisionist historians cast a doubt over the liberal interpretation and analysis of events. For the average peasant, due to a marked increase in the level of investment in food and consumer products within the countryside, the standard of living rose in the decades prior to even 1905, but the revolution still occurred. Thus the Revisionists introduce the argument that peasant aggressiveness is not a direct consequence or function of overall level of poverty but their unrest also comes from a want to achieve political goals. They further dismiss the liberal point that a reduction in taxes or an end to redemption dues was likely to alleviate peasa nt rebelliousness. In fact it was the failure to realise the rising economic and political expectations and the peasants assertiveness of those goals that would ensure tensions only got worse and instability flowered.The Neo- Populist Revisionist historians also point out that Stolypins reforms of the Commune were pointless as major innovations had taken place in villages where communes prevailed. Dismantling the commune would in itself be a major barrier to agricultural improvement, and for the vast majority, the option of leaving the commune held little attraction and resistance to Stolypin was fierce. (Acton) Few left it and few new useful ideas came out of those who had. Contrary to both Soviet and Liberal points of view, Neo- Populists state that there was no commercialisations creation of differentiation between the rural bourgeoisie and the rural proletariat. Acton points out that the classical effect of the market and commercial competition, which both Marxists and liberal e conomists take for granted was not happening. The communal redistribution of land, heavy impositions of the State and the vulnerability of the kulaks to the ups-and- downs of weather and the climate all countered any commercialisation.Communes didnt split, even when times were good. No- one wanted rich farmers, especially if they were their neighbour, and they would dislike the fact that someone had more than them. So the vast majority of middle peasants were bound together by the Commune and tensions in the village were constantly turned towards a more important enemy- the nobleman. The village had a common interest, a way of life, and an outlook on life (Acton). The Revisionists believe that the peasants were united in their obvious resentment and enmity towards the gentry. Basically the peasants were not only united in the face of land shortages and economic hardships but were also politically motivated to get rid of the gentry and so would seize land just as eagerly as it had do ne in the revolution of 1905. This is diametrically opposite to the liberal idea to less disturbances and more rural contentment. This only highlights and identifies the complex problem of stability in the regions surrounding the towns.The Revisionists also disagree with the Soviets. They do not equate social tensions with economic or political processes at the heart of the Marxist interpretation. As the rate of progress and the level of the standard of living increases, then the Revisionists point out that it becomes exceedingly hard for the Soviets to claim that there is feudal exploitation in the towns and that people are unhappy. Also the revisionists dispute the insistence of the Soviet historians that the peasant movement followed the proletariat vanguard. Although Lenins party of a new type offered guidance, the peasants could revolt and conquer all they need by themselves. Revisionists show that Lenins genius wasnt needed, as peasants were capable of sustaining their own rev olt. One Russian proverb goes thus: Give a starving man some bread, and hell soon take the whole loaf. Expectations were high, and with every little bit of reform, the peasants insisted on more (bread).In fact the Russian peasant, in the eyes of Revisionists, soon learned the definition of starving and the reason why it was so, through an improvement of his literacy levels. The peasant became more politically conscious without the aid of the Socialists, in what ever form they came. The peasants were independent, and this would prove correct in February 1917, when they finally did seize land without much help of socialist parties. Although we know, by looking at the last two Duma compositions, that the peasants were more favourable towards the socialists. When this combined with the peasants declining respect for established authority especially the nobles, the trend of demands accelerated. If noble landownership, the prime source of peasant resentment, was far from fading peacefull y away (Acton), then the hope for stability had disappeared as the peasants clamoured for improvements both economically and politically.Stolypins policy did little or nothing to restrict or halt the ferocity of the peasants attack upon the nobility. 1905 was a prime example. Despite increases in standard of living and wages, the revolutions went ahead. This shows the peasants were in fact more aware politically and the fact that it was impossible to have economic modernisation without political liberation, such as the right to own all land. While Revisionists rightly agree that peasants could have been better off and perhaps this would have prevented revolution, they stop short of the extremities the Soviets choose to say. Revisionists contradict the central features of the Soviet camp, by stating that the situation wasnt as bad as the Soviets say it was, and that there was hope and revolution was certainly not inevitable.There was at least hope for stability. While on the other ha nd both currents of Revisionists likewise show opposition to liberal optimism by playing down the significance of reforms that liberals place, and question whether those reforms would actually lead to social stability. According to Service, the conventional wisdom and feeling has been that some kind of revolution was on the way and highly likely, just no one knew when. He further adds that basic tensions in state and society had not been alleviated, and the peasants wish for egalitarian custom and social justice would in the events of February 1917, be hard to extinguish. These were the ideals for which they (the peasants) would fight long and hard. (O. Figes)Economic transformation was also taking place in the towns. Liberals say that industrialisation would take time, and as the economy grew then conditions would improve. They say this is typical of early modernisation and after a certain period of time wages and conditions would ameliorate. The channels were being opened for peac eful management- employer bargaining within the framework of a private enterprise company (Acton), and a start had been made. However this start and likewise future progress relied on what both Soviet and Revisionist historians agree to call brutal conditions. Pitiful wages, 60- hour working week, the rate of industrial accidents horrific, overcrowded housing etc. and a general crude attitude towards the workers means that the Liberal point of view seems like capitalism was simply not being implemented properly and that serious reforms would need to be considered if that ideal liberal market place, in which workers would be able to become integrated with the rest of society (Acton), were to appear.Both Revisionists and Soviets agree that there was in reality emerging a brutal form of industrial capitalism, rather than the fostering of moderation, reformism and concern with purely economic goals that the Liberals promise. This environment was creating a more radical and politically c onscious set of workers eager to strike at any moment. While liberals assure us that without war, the levels of worker militancy would decline as workers became more capitalist minded, this is hard to reconcile with the more realistic Revisionist stance. The Revisionists in fact diametrically oppose the Liberal claim that the workers protest was becoming less intense. There remains a fact that in 1905- at a time when there was an extremely high level of protests and disturbances, there were 13, 995 strikers who attended 2, 863, 173 number of strikes.But in 1914- at a time when liberals claim there was a period of less intense protest, there are 3, 574 strikers which attended 1, 337, 458 strikes1. These figures show that a time,1914, when Liberals believe there was a less intense programme of protest, more strikes per person (374 per person) than a time, 1905, when the Liberals state there was a huge number of protests (205 per person). The Revisionists clearly put to bed any doubt a s to the stability of the Empire. They prove that the liberal view of social unrest was less intense after the reforms of the Tsar as not only an understatement but a complete distortion of the truth. And the Revisionist L. Haimson, correctly states, about the stability of the workers: By 1914, strike action was running at a rate comparable to that of 1905. Worse still, the Autocracy was being threatened by these strikes in its capital city. If the modernity and concentration of labour which St. Petersburg epitomised were the pattern of the future, the prospects for urban stability were poor.Even further, the Revisionists undermine the Liberal view point, by providing opposing facts to what the Liberals say. Indeed, there existed a fusion between economic and political goals for the workers, and it was not a Liberal labour aristocracy that emerged. That remains a Liberal dream. But in revisionist reality, it was the most urbanised workers, those with the highest levels of skills, e ducation and wages who were at the forefront of the labour protest (Acton). It shows the general level of discontentment with the autocracy, showing us that protests were not strictly tied with economic principles but also, and much more importantly with political motivations. If the print workers, exceptionally well paid individuals, were the most promising candidates for roles in the strike processions, then we are revealed a deeper sense of mistrust and uncertainty over the regime amongst normal people. We see beyond the glittering exterior of autocracy, as Pipes calls it, and see the base structures which are inherently weak and unstable. We see the pillars are wobbling inside the monarchys castle. And that in unison, Soviets and Revisionists cry that the workers really confronted the tsarist regime with a challenge it could not withstand (Acton).The politicisation of the workforce was now apparent, and the Revisionists showed that workers tended to side with socialists in the D UMA elections and Trade Union Boards (as Soviets rightly claim) but the Revisionists differ in their analysis of the nature of socialist influence. The Revisionists however limit Bolshevik influence before the war [as] less a cause than a consequence of the Russian working class radicalisation (Acton). After all, it was less thanks to Bolshevik propaganda than to personal experiences of disillusionment, disappointment, and poverty that worker radicalisation occurred. In contrast to both Soviet and Liberal interpretations, at every turn workers found themselves coming up against the State and economic grievances could only be redressed by achieving political change (Acton) which was possible without the genius of Lenin.As experience determined how Russian workers acted, then if they were to follow a reformist path in the pre- war years, then that depended on whether the delicate flowers of parliamentary politics (Acton) were given time to blossom. The impact of war combined with the character of the Tsar further fuelled the fire which was already causing the system to come apart.The pressures of the First World War threw the anachronistic traits of Russian autocracy into sharp relief, and made Nicholas II seem less like an upholder of the autocratic tradition than an unwitting satirist of it. (S. Fitzpatrick) But first it was the personal inabilities of the tsar which rocked the autocratic boat. His insistence on mentioning the principle of autocracy just as firmly as did his dead father, and opposing any real reforms took away political power from his hands and shifted the balance to the people. Also his personal deficiencies were in part responsible for his early demise, as he was neither resolute enough to uphold the status quo, nor was he dynamic or far- sighted enough to realise that through genuine reforms he would be able to avert revolution and save his familys throne.However his conservative aids were too strong to repel, and the Duma became a nothing more than a toy for the Tsar, and so he became more and more reliant on force, he lost the support of both the middle classes and the intelligentsia. The Revisionists agree with the Soviets here that the liberals were in an insoluble predicament, because although popular with the more influential individuals, they themselves proved too weak and unable to face up opposition. They could not move left because they were afraid of the masses and the potential revolutions which they could bring, and appealing to them could destroy the liberals. Neither could the move to the right and risk becoming hostages in a regime which they would exercise no control (Acton).They did not have a foothold on power nor could they present an effective opposition. With no hopes for reform, Liberals tend to single out the Tsar who by now through his own stubbornness and unwillingness to co- operate was left with quite bluntly no friends to sustain him in power. His landed nobility support was too narrow a p olitical base to keep him in power, the police force too small, corrupt and ill- trained to keep control of the towns and the Army refused to co- operate with the Tsars wishes when it itself wanted reform. The Autocratic regime was becoming more and more unstable, and the writing was on the wall before the war broke out (Acton). Tsarism was a deadlocked political system, drifting helplessly towards destruction (A. K. Wildman). War only speeded up the regimes demise, as Gorky said, one thing was clear and that was that with the entrance to the 1st World War, Russia was entering the 1st act of a worldwide tragedy.There are many points on which the Revisionists and Soviets agree, namely that by 1914 the regime was already on the road to revolution, but where as the Soviets explanations for that route take is due to the fantastical determinist highly inevitable socialist theory and the great genius of its leaders, the Revisionists point more towards personal experience being the key to the radicalisation of peasants and workers. The liberal view of gradual recovery by Russia if not for the bolt form the blue World War One seems just as unlikely as the Soviet claims. The Revisionists seems to offer a realistic explanation of the fall of one the greatest Empires of history, through a mixture of balanced arguments, analysis and a substantial examination of facts. We know that Russia was on the path to annihilation, but the Revisionists in detail provide a sensible answer, accommodating for the war being the last kick in the backside and how it proved to be the Empires undoing.

Americas Tv Role Model Essays - Television, Series, Entertainment

Americas Tv Role Model Essays - Television, Series, Entertainment Americas Tv Role Model Americas TV Role Model What America needs is a family like The Waltons, not families like The Simpsons - at least according to President George Bush. A strange remark, given that one does not normally expect the President of the United States to pass judgments on television dramas like The Waltons, let along cartoon shows like The Simpsons. The producers of The Simpsons were quick to respond, by making Bart Simpson remark that the Simpson family was really just like the Waltons family - waiting for the end of the depression. The Waltons were an imaginary rural family waiting for the 30s depression to end, while The Simpsons are a postmodern family of today. Both belong to the curious history of the American TV family. A history so central to the past, present and future of American culture that no one - not even Presidential candidates, can afford to ignore it. Before radio and television, the family home was a space that could function in relative seclusion from public life. In the advice manuals of Victorian times, the ideal middle class home was one that sheltered women and children from the evil influences of the public sphere. The virtues of thrift and self-improvement - the sort of values Bush associates with the Waltons - were a 19th century notion of the good life. In this vision of the family, men worked in the outside world and had the final say at home; women were to be protected from the outside world but managed the day-to-day business of the home and the raising of the children. Of course, things were not like that for many people, but this was the ideal that the home manuals proscribed. Every good middle class Victorian home aspired to have a piano, and women were supposed to learn to play it teach the children to play it also. The piano was a civilizing influence, supposedly. With the rise of consumerism, however, all this began to change. The phonograph, the radio and finally the television replaced the piano. The virtues of thrift and self-improvement gave way to consumerism and the pursuit of leisure for its own sake. Conservatives have always decried these changes and called for a return to the old ways, but modern capitalism depends on its consumers to keep going. Without this shift in family life from thrift to spending and from self-improvement to consumption, the industrial age might never have kept going. Indeed, the collapse of the economy that produced the return to thrift and discipline exemplified by The Waltons TV family happened in part because consumerism didn't quite take off in the 20s. It was only after the massive expansion of manufacturing that took place during the war and the deliberate efforts to turn war production into consumer production that the conditions were set for the kind of TV family we know today. The 50s saw a tremendous boom in housing construction. Young couples who had put their lives on hold during the war got into home making with a vengeance. The period of suburban ecstasy had begun. One of the new consumer technologies that filled the new suburban homes was the television. By 1955 about 65% of American homes had one. Like all new media technologies, it began by reproducing the popular fare of the media it replaced. Just as the early gramophone records were reproductions of popular music hall tunes; early television reproduced popular radio shows. This is the first phase of any new media - when it borrows and adapts the formats of the old media. Not all of the popular radio programs successfully made the transition to television. Father Knows Best, a well-known TV situation comedy of the fifties, was one program that did survive the transition from radio to television. Interestingly, the 'ethnic' radio sitcoms like Amos'n'Andy and Life with Luigi did not. The general public would listen to, but not watch, minorities on television. Father Knows Best is typical of early American TV families. Its name sums it up, really, and sums up how different it was from The Simpsons. Homer Simpson usually hasn't a clue what is best for his family or even for himself. He is a figure

These 7 Work Stereotypes about Millennials are NOT Necessarily True

These 7 Work Stereotypes about Millennials are NOT Necessarily True Millennials have been told for a decade just how bad they are at life. They’re lazy, live with their parents, are totally entitled, etc. The list goes on. If you’re a millennial, this can do a lot to hamper your self-esteem and even your career goals. But a lot of the hate out there is based on very little fact. Millennials aren’t much different from any other generation that came before. In fact, if naysayers bothered to talk to millennials, they’d find that this young generation has the same career aspirations, life goals, and general motivation as older generations. Plus, they’re indispensable: millennials will make up more than 50% of the workforce in the years to come.Given all of that, we should start debunking a few of those millennial myths.Myth #1: Millennials are all â€Å"me, me, me,† all the time.Reality: Every generation is all â€Å"me, me, me.† It’s just human nature. Every older generation thinks the new one is s elfish and self-obsessed. If you’re feeling picked on, you’re not alone. The Baby Boomers were the original â€Å"me† generation, and there’ll be more after you. Maybe you’ll even be the one doing the nagging when you’re higher up in the career ranks.Myth #2: Millennials want a party and ribbon just for showing up.Reality: Millennials don’t actually crave constant unearned acclaim. In fact, as kids they may have been trained for this by their helicopter parents, but they’re grown-ups now and want to earn their accolades like everyone else. Trust: It’s really the Baby Boomers who think all members should be rewarded when the team is successful. Millennials are pretty cutthroat and competitive about winning fair and square.Myth #3: Millennials are tech-obsessed and can’t live a life offline.Reality: Yes, millennials are strapped to their devices as though their phones are vital limbs. But they are also capable, and even eager, for face-to-face interaction when that makes most sense (i.e. in the workplace). And they’re actually more likely to draw a line between personal and professional on social media than older generations.Myth #4: Millennials are wafflers.Reality: Everyone solicits advice and gets friends, colleagues, and family to weigh in on important decisions. Millennials perhaps look to a larger variety of sources to make more informed decisions than their more independent-minded elders. This is actually a shrewd move, especially in today’s increasingly interconnected and complex business world.Myth #5: Millennials aren’t loyal and will jump ship whenever they lose interest.Reality: While â€Å"passion† is certainly important to this generation, millennials actually stay with their employers longer than their Gen X counterparts. The market is scarier and leaner out there, so they know when to stay put and be more calculating with their career moves. Perhaps they will have held more jobs by a certain age than other generations, but that has more to do with the cutthroat economy and less to do with laziness or wanderlust.Myth #6: Millennials don’t work hard.Reality: The skill set of this century is already markedly different than the skill set of the old one. Workplaces, and workplace culture, look nothing like they used to. As such, making comparisons between them is fruitless. Given the demands of today’s high tech interconnected workforce, millennials are actually working very hard and innovating at an exponential rate. They’re also a little more competitive than Baby Boomers, which goes hand-in-hand with hard work, hustle, and long hours.Myth #7: Millennials need work to babysit them.Reality: Millennials are actually quite capable of taking care of themselves. Corporations don’t have to talk down to them or treat them like children. Also, with the ever-changing structure of the workforce, millennials have a choice to work for corporations or for themselves in today’s economy. Corporations would do well to realize they need millennials more than millennials need them!

Analysis the case study sabmiller by gerry johnson 2010 Essay

Analysis the case study sabmiller by gerry johnson 2010 - Essay Example This paper looks on at the company’s performance in the year 2009 and how this was significant in terms of having to apply a number of strategies and try and boost their results a few fold. Also, different strategies that may be applied by the company as futuristic options have also been discussed within the paper with the help of which the company will be able to decide its future advantages and demerits. Briefly speaking, during the year 2009, SABMiller took a number of important steps in order to ensure that the company received a high status and was acknowledged not only in its areas of control and operations but all over the world, on a global basis. It has tried to consolidate its position in the business environment, develop its market and products in the global market, and has also tried to expand and diversify its product detailing in order to develop a stronger and better customer and target base. Almost after ten years of being listed in the stock exchange board of London, the company moved from being number 88 to the 17th position in the FTSE. Its market capitalization had also increased almost four fold. It had become the second largest brewer in the world by global standards and had a number of worldwide brands listed in its brand portfolio. However, all this recognition and success for the company came at the hands of smart decision making, excellent thinking and implementation of action as well as making good choices for strategies. SABMiller had tried to establish itself in the market by taking on its competitors and making a name for itself. It tried to create a balanced environment for itself in the market, and tried to attract global businesses from all over the world to come and partner and collaborate with it in terms of providing clientele for suppliers. With time, the company has tried to acquire as many smaller units as it can in order to help itself grow and establish a network on an international basis. This has helped it to ex pand and make other people aware of its presence in the global market. The company has tried to exploit all kinds of opportunities available to it in different countries of operation and thus has also strengthened its position by joining hands with a number of partnerships and proprietors all over in order to not only give them a chance and raise its goodwill and morality but also help itself set a good network chain. The main aim of the company is to develop a strong portfolio name for the international market and keep its customers and consumers satisfied and happy so that they establish strong connections and contacts with the company with time. The company has thus tried to move into specialty brands and become bait for a more affluent consumer group. It has been trying to locate and provide the target consumers with their needs and wants and try and not let their goals shift from those of the company’s. Yet another strategy in the entire management of the company is its will to never stop striving to do better. The company has an excellent lookout towards its smaller units and collaborations and thus always makes sure that these small intermediaries are also satisfied in terms of the kind of work that they are all carrying out for the main company. Thus, it strives to constantly keep on raising the level of performance at every localized level that it has. Its manufacturing processes have taken a

No topic Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 6

No topic - Coursework Example The theory is, however, silent on the concurrent promotion of one’s self interest as well as those of others; only emphasizing one’s interest as the only variable to fulfilling the basic goal of one’s happiness. It also does not inhibit actions that help others, but endorses actions of giving oneself pleasure, in effect, encouraging selfishness rather total foolishness. According to the theory, helping others does no good, for it is not only a denial of value of individualism, which in effect, degrades physically and/or emotionally wellbeing, but an offensive intrusion into other people’s business, which cannot be fulfilled by any other person other than the self, for true needs are best known only to the individual. Moreover, sustaining other people’s lives is sacrificing the individuals’ interest, which in itself is a zero sum game. The arguments are, however, at loggerheads with rational thinking. First, the argument that helping others only serves to mess them up is counterproductive. The idea of diminished individual value is also based on a false dichotomy, for it does not have to be a zero sum game as opined by the ethical egoists. Notably, the theory divides the world into two categories: the individual and all others, and actually places the former way above the latter, making it a discriminative theory grounded on irrational bases. On the contrary, we should care for others because their interests are comparable to