Relationship Between Freedom And Authority

Relationship Between Freedom And Authority In this essay I will discuss the relationship between freedom and authority in Jean-Jacques Rousseaus essay The Social Contract, and John Stuart Mills essay On Liberty. I will argue through my comparison of each philosopher that Mills conception of liberty is the richer and more persuasive of the two. Rousseaus conception of freedom in The Social Contract is that people attain their freedom through a transformation from a state of nature to civil society. We give up our natural freedom in exchange for civilized freedom. His contention is that we can be both free and subject to political authority; Rousseau thinks its possible to be autonomous and subject to law, when we obey those laws of which we are the author. He justifies this model of political authority by saying that government and laws are the will of the sovereign we give our consent for them to exist. That consent is guided by what Rousseau calls the general will. The general will is an idea that signifies the wishes or welfares of society as a whole. The purpose of the general will is to guide society to a common good, to advise society in its creation of laws and express what is best for all individuals. The problem with the general will, Mill claims, is that it seems to reject individual diversity. Mill is worried that minorities may be oppressed if they think differently to the majority. Considering all individuals revoked their natural liberty through the change from a state of nature to civil society, Rousseau thinks that society must force individuals to conform to the general will, or as he puts it, society must force them to be free. He thinks that by associating ourselves with the general will we acquire morality, and actually become freer than we were before. To Rousseau, freedom is attained when one follows the general will. Mills essay On Liberty is a strong counter argument to Rousseaus conception of freedom, especially regarding the general will. Contrasting Rousseau, Mills idea is not a social contract theory. According to Mill, in order for a society to be free it must avoid interfering with the lives of its people wherever possible. The threat, as Mill sees it, is that if we subscribe to the concept of the general will then society risks becoming paternalistic, or a tyranny of the majority where minority views are supressed if they do not conform to those of the majority. Mill thinks that society constrains the individual, and that society should be limited in the power it can exert over individuals; he enumerates three conditions upon which society must follow in order to be free: freedom of thought and feeling, freedom of tastes and pursuits and the freedom to unite with other consenting individuals for any reason providing it does no harm to others. He says that if a society does not follow these conditions it is not free. Mill wants to avoid principles and laws as much as possible because he sees them as unnecessary constraints. The only principle that Mill does want to establish is the harm principle what he calls the object of his essay. The harm principle says that the only time one can interfere with the liberty of another person, individually or collectively, is for self-protection. This principle claims that if an individual is not doing any harm to anyone in their actions, then society has no right to interfere. Over himself says Mill, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign it is the individual, and not society, who should decide how best to live. Mills conception of freedom appears to be a version of negative liberty, a type of freedom that allows one to do what they want free from restrictions. His freedom is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. Rousseaus social contract theory is a type of positive liberty, that allows citizens to act in such a way as to take control of ones life and realise ones fundamental purposes. Rousseau characterises two types of freedom in The Social Contract: the natural liberty, which is limited only by the strength of the individual and civil liberty, which is limited by the general will. Natural liberty is the freedom to follow ones own desires. Civil liberty is the freedom one attains when they follow the general will. Like Rousseau, Mill talks about a type of civil or social freedom; however, unlike Rousseau he doesnt speculate about a state of nature. Rather, Mill states that his theory is justified by utilitarianism, he isnt making a comparison between a state of nature and civil society. I think this makes Mills argument more persuasive because he isnt making an assumption that we have natural rights. Mill doesnt seem to think we have natural rights, and even if we do, Rousseau doesnt tell us how we can actually know what they are. Rousseau appears to think that we have an intrinsic freedom that exists in the state of nature, and he wants to merge the individual liberty one supposedly has in the state of nature, with civil society. He thinks the way to do this is by following the general will. I think the biggest problem at the heart of Rousseaus social contract theory is the way he deals with individuals who disagree with the general will. He states that if anyone refuses to obey the general will he will be compelled to do so by the whole body; which means nothing else than that he will be forced to be free. His social contract declares that if an individual disagrees with the general will, then they must be wrong, and for their own good they must be forced to conform to the general will. Mill would undoubtedly consider such forced conformity a tyranny of the majority because of his strong belief that individuality is something that should be cherished and valued. Mill would disagree with Rousseaus notion that people should be forced to be free since he thinks its detrimental to both the individual and the majority when an alternative opinion is oppressed. Rousseau on the other hand, thinks that taking up the general perspective of the community is always the right thing to do. Contrary to Rousseau, Mill doesnt think that the majority gain their power because they are infallible, but simply because they are the most numerous or the most active part of the people. Mill states that silencing the expression of an opinion deprives the human race. Firstly, reasons Mill, if a majority silences an opinion that is different or less popular than their own, and that alternative opinion turns out to be right, then they are depriving themselves of what is right. Almost as great a benefit to society is listening to an alternative opinion even if it turns out to be wrong, because challenging dominant opinion prevents stagnation. Stifling opinion is always a bad thing; Mill says that Absolute princes, or others who are accustomed to unlimited deference, usually feel this complete confidence in their own opinions on nearly all subjects because their opinion is never tested. It is through this collision with error that the truth becomes stronger. Mill thinks that this proc ess of listening to a whole variety of thought and feeling leads to a healthier cultural climate and a place of greater freedom and liberty. Rousseau might object to Mills importance of minority opinion by saying that emphasis on individuality undermines social and political obligations. That its somehow an unrealistic idea to consider everyones opinion. He says in the social contract that citizens must be forced to follow the general will, because it means society will not depend on any one person for change to occur. Rousseau says of the general will that this condition is the device that ensures the operation of the political machine. He thinks its naÃÆ'Â ¯ve to listen to a minority not only because he assumes they must be wrong, but because they prevent the political system from making any progress. Rousseau thinks that without the general will, a political system would be absurd and tyrannical, and subject to the most terrible abuses. However, Mill would still disagree and respond by saying that if all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. I think where they really differ here is that Mill doesnt think anyone can be free if theyre forced to conform to the majority, whereas Rousseau thinks conformity is necessary for liberty and best for the community- he says that every authentic act of the general will, obligates or favours all the citizens equally. He knows that its unrealistic that all citizens will agree to the general will, and so he says minorities must be forced to follow it (forced to be free). Perhaps its painfully obvious here that Rousseau has left himself in a vulnerable position he doesnt really explain to us how one must be forced to follow the general will. Thus, theres possibly an element of compatibility between Rousseaus and Mills conceptions of freedom. If its the case that the process of being forced to be free includes Mills notion that people should be free to debate and discuss, and providing everyones opinion is treated with respect and they are convinced, through discussion, to change their vi ews, then its certainly possible that eventually all citizens will individually come the same conclusions about the common good of their community. Its certainly conceivable, but it seems unlikely. Even if this compatibility were to exist, Mill would object by saying that we still need a variety of opinion even if its wrong to prevent social stagnation and to challenge popular views. He would say that providing an individual is doing what they please by means of the harm principle, then society has no right to demand such an active citizenship from them. Rousseau may take issue with Mills harm principle but asking what actually constitutes harm. Its obvious that physical harm is detrimental and people shouldnt be free to harm others but there are forms of consequentialism that can piece together seemingly harmonious actions, and prove that they actually have damaging effects. For instance, universal consequentialism focuses on the consequences for all people rather than the individual agent. Rousseau might say that a person may not seem to be harming another individual in their actions, but an ingenious person could find harmful consequences for almost anything a person does. One might find themselves aroused by conflicting emotions if made to choose between the philosophies of Rousseau and Mill, depending on how they feel about an issue. It seems especially difficult to feel one has to conform to the majority when they disagree with it, but of course when one is on the side of the majority it can be hard to understand why anyone wouldnt be. The majority of climate scientists support global warming, and if one believes in global warming it seems hard to understand why anyone would reject it. If you want gay marriage but the majority doesnt, it seems crazy to think you have to conform to the general will. I think this is what makes Rousseaus and Mills conceptions of freedom so attractive to us. I find Mills argument to be more persuasive than Rousseaus because even with modifications to Rousseaus social contract, the general will seems unable to avoid a tyranny of the majority. The general will seems too abstract to utilise without thinking of it as simply the sum of all private interests; Rousseau makes it hard for us to recognize what the general will is or how to determine it, and he offers no reassurance that the majority knows what is best. He seems to be making a huge assumption that we have natural rights in the first place, but he provides no evidence for them. Works Cited Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty and The Subjection of Women. London: Penguin Group, 2006. Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Social Contract, A new translation by Christopher Betts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

A South Korean Company that Operates in China Essay -- Asian Economics

A South Korean Company that Operates in China This report address’s the requirements at hand to select a South Korean company that has operations in China Executive Summary: In 1992, Samsung Electronics adopted the form of a wholly owned subsidiary as the entry mode into China. It’s entry into China was in order to maintain growth due to the tough competition in Korea. China was selected in order to take advantage of its low wages for the mass production of low to medium priced products. The initial manufacturing ground was at Tianjin due to its costal location hence making it easy to export abroad and to major locations in China. The original focus of producing low cost products resulted in a cheap image of Samsung in China and led to a loss of US$210,000 in 1998 for its Suzhou division. The 1997 Asian economic crisis led to Samsung shifting its focus towards higher quality products. Samsung realised they could not compete with the Chinese manufacturers in terms of low priced products. In order to remain competitive in China, Samsung shifted its marketing strategy to one based on â€Å"selection and concentration†. After 1997, the focus was on the 10 major cities in China including Beijing, Tianjin, Suzhou, Shanghai and Guangzhou. Samsung came up with the â€Å"5% strategy†, targeting their products at the top 5% earners in China. The intensity of their Research & Development (R&D) in China grew with the expansion of their plant at Suzhou. Recently, there appears to be a shift in their operations from the Pearl River Delta to the Yangtze River Delta. This allows Samsung to take advantage of the better skilled personnel and infrastructure available for R&D. Samsung also set up a second Headquarters in Beijing which is responsible for marketing, personnel recruitment and for shaping of Samsung’s long term ambitions in China. Introduction: The Samsung group has 116 subsidiaries in 67 countries and received sales revenue from local subsidiaries of US$29billion. Over the last 5 years sales and net income have increased 1.6 times and 45 times, respectively. Sales in 2010 are anticipated to be 1.9 times that of 2002, with pre-tax profits expected to increase 2.1 times. Samsung is a heavily diversified company, and in order to best demonstrate its market entry to China, the report will look at the electronics arm to demonstr... ...eman, E., 2003. "Can the Pearl River Delta region still compete?", in The China Business Review, 30(3): 6-17, pages 53-63.  · Skopal, A. and C.J.Zhu, 2002. "An evaluation of entry strategy development in China?", in The 4th International Symposium on Multinational Business Management Proceedings, Nanjing, China, May 19-21, pages 65-73  · New York Times, 1991, (cited 9 May 2005) ‘Korean Companies in China’, late edition (East Coast), New York, pg. D20,  · Christian Science Monitor, 1992, (cited 9 May 2005) ‘High-Tech Giant Gears for Future The president of Samsung Electronics Company’, pre-1997 Full text, Boston, Mass, pg. NOPGCIT,  · Strategic Direction, 1999, (cited 9 May 2005), ‘Samsung Electronics play the China Card’, Bradford: Jul/Aug, Vol.15, Iss. 7, pg. 24  · Sender H., 2003, (cited 9 May 2005) ‘World Business (A Special Report); Back From the Brink: Samsung Electronics got into trouble by being like many Asian firms; It survived by being different’, Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), New York, Sep. 22, pg. R.5  · Lee, B. J., 2004, (cited 9 May 2005) ‘Gotta Be Chinese’, Newsweek New York: Jun 28, Vol. 143, Iss. 26, pg. E8

The Effect of Conflict Towards Performance

INTRODUCTION Businesses nowadays are operating in a turbulent environment where organisations are searching for measures that will allow them to improve their performance and competitiveness (Dodd, 2003). Conflict is generally regarded as disagreement regarding interests or ideas (Esquivel and Kleiner, 1997). In addition organisational conflict is regarded as the discord that occurs when the goals, interests or values of different individuals or groups are incompatible with those of individuals or groups block or frustrate each others in an attempt to achieve their objectives.Conflict are inevitable part of organisational life since the goals of different stakeholders such as managers and staff are often incompatible (Jones  et al. , 2000). Besides that,  Loomis and Loomis (1965)  argue that Conflict is an ever-present process in human relations. That is why various organisations have changed their approaches to enable them to manage their organisations effectively to avoid con flicts at all costs. Conflict is a fact of life in any organisations as longer as people compete for jobs, resources, power, recognition and security.In addition, dealing with conflicts is a great challenge to management (Adomi and Anie, 2005). Conflicts commonly arise when employees interact in organisations and compete for scarce resources. Employees in various organisations are organized into manageable groups in order to achieve common goal, therefore, the probability of conflicts to arise is very high. Nowadays, most serious conflicts make headlines in the newspapers, which might affect the public image of the company. Conflicts have both negative and positive outcomes to the individual employees and the organization at large.There is no one source of conflicts which occurs in organisations at all levels of management (Barker  et al. , 1987). In social life, conflicts do occur but they are managed by family members, friends and relatives. The same case applies to organisation s, when conflicts arise; it needs to be resolved by management for the sake of the organisational growth, survival and enhance performance. However, conflicts are rarely resolved easily, to a certain extend most conflicts are managed, as individuals work out differences (Barker  et al. , 1987).Conflict can occur within groups (intra-group conflict) or among groups (inter-group conflict). Therefore, the main aim of this study is to examine the effects of organizational conflicts towards organizational performance. It specifically tries to examine in detail, the causes, types, effects and recommend various strategies on how to resolve organizational conflicts to enhance organizational performance. WHAT IS ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT? ‘A condition between or among workers whose jobs are interdependent, who feel angry, who perceive the other(s) as being at fault, and who act in ways that cause a business problem. (Dana, D. 2001) Interdependency – each party needs something fr om the other and are vulnerable if they don’t get it Feeling Angry – people are emotionally upset – anger is not always visible – some people will hide their anger with a veneer of politeness – however, Dana suggests that the emotion we all know as anger is always present when there is a conflict. Blaming Each Other – each party sees the other as being at fault often moving from the immediate workplace issue into personal issues Causing a Business Problem – How is the conflict impacting on job performance? if it is not then it does not fall within the definition of workplace conflict. This definition includes emotions, thoughts and behaviors – psychologists consider these three the only dimensions of human experience. So conflict is rooted in all parts of our human experience. Factors of conflict in organization 1. Managerial Expectations – it is job of an employee to meet the expectations of his manager, but if those ex pectations is misunderstood, conflict can arise. 2. Breakdown in Communication If a department requires information from another department in order to its job, and the second department does not respond to the request this is will lead to conflict to arise. 3. Misunderstanding the information Internal conflict can sometimes arise as the result of a simple misunderstanding. One person may misunderstand information, and that can trigger a series of conflict. 4. Lack of accountability Organization conflict might arise from frustration. One source of frustration is a lack of accountability.If something has gone wrong, and no one is willing to take responsibility for the problem, this lack of accountability can start to permeate throughout the entire company until the issue is resolved. Factors of conflict in employee 1. Differing values Some employees have strong beliefs, which they are not willing to compromise. These beliefs can conflict with coworkers’, creating conflict. 2. Opposing interest When an employee decides to pursue her own career goal, without regard for the organizational goal and its well- being, it result in strife among coworkers. 3. Personality ConflictsOne employee may have a reserved a personality while another may be more outgoing and forward. Problem arises when the two do not understand or respect each others’ inner nature. 4. Personal problems If the employee has problems outside the workplace, such as marital or parental issues, she may take them to work with her. Positive And Negative Effects Of Conflict It is often assumed that all conflict is bad for the organisation, however if managed effectively, conflict can bring benefits: Potential Positive Effects * Better ideas produced * People forced to search for new approaches Long standing problems brought to the surface and resolved * Clarification of individual views * Stimulation of interest and creativity * A chance for people to test their capacities Potential Negative Effects * Some people feel defeated and demeaned * The distance between people increased * A climate of mistrust and suspicion developed * Individuals and groups concentrate on their own narrow interests * Resistance developed rather than teamwork * An increase in employee turnover Models Of Conflict Management There have been many styles of conflict management behavior that have been researched in the past century.One of the earliest,  Mary Parker Follett  (1926/1940) found that conflict was managed by individuals in three main ways: domination,  compromise, and integration. She also found other ways of handling conflict that were employed by organizations, such as  avoidance  and suppression. Early Conflict Management Models Blake and Mouton (1964) were among the first to present a conceptual scheme for classifying the modes (styles) for handling interpersonal conflicts into five types: forcing, withdrawing, smoothing, compromising, and problem solving.In the 1970â€⠄¢s and 1980’s, researchers began using the intentions of the parties involved to classify the styles of conflict management that they would include in their models. Both Thomas (1976) and Pruitt (1983) put forth a model based on the concerns of the parties involved in the conflict. The combination of the parties concern for their own interests (i. e. assertiveness) and their concern for the interests of those across the table (i. e. cooperativeness) would yield a particular conflict management style.Pruitt called these styles yielding (low assertiveness/high cooperativeness), problem solving (high assertiveness/high cooperativeness), inaction (low assertiveness/low cooperativeness), and contending (high assertiveness/low cooperativeness). Pruitt argues that problem-solving is the preferred method when seeking mutually beneficial options. Khun and Poole’s Model Khun and Poole (2000) established a similar system of group conflict management. In their system, they split Kozan’s confrontational model into two sub models: distributive and integrative. Distributive – Here conflict is approached as a distribution of a fixed amount of positive outcomes or resources, where one side will end up winning and the other losing, even if they do win some concessions. * Integrative – Groups utilizing the integrative model see conflict as a chance to integrate the needs and concerns of both groups and make the best outcome possible. This model has a heavier emphasis on compromise than the distributive model. Khun and Poole found that the integrative model resulted in consistently better task related outcomes than those using the distributive model.DeChurch and Marks’s Meta-Taxonomy Model DeChurch and Marks (2001) examined the literature available on conflict management at the time and established what they claimed was a â€Å"meta-taxonomy† that encompasses all other models. They argued that all other styles have inherent in the m into two dimensions – activeness (â€Å"the extent to which conflict behaviors make a responsive and direct rather than inert and indirect impression†) and agreeableness (â€Å"the extent to which conflict behaviors make a pleasant and relaxed rather than unpleasant and strainful impression†).High activeness is characterized by openly discussing differences of opinion while fully going after their own interest. High agreeableness is characterized by attempting to satisfy all parties involved In the study they conducted to validate this division, activeness did not have a significant effect on the effectiveness of  conflict resolution, but the  agreeableness  of the conflict management style, whatever it was, did in fact have a positive impact on how groups felt about the way the conflict was managed, regardless of the outcome. CONFLICT CONTROLSTRATEGY| POSSIBLE ACTIONS| EXAMPLES| Avoidance| Avoid situations where conflict occurs; reduce triggering events ; cooling off periods| Reduce contact between the parties; set up system for dealing with conflict subjects; adjourn meetings| Alteration| Change the form or place of the conflict| Agree not to argue in front of others, or to criticise each other without making a positive suggestion; meet before conflict situations to resolve problems| Feedback| Help parties to understand how others are affected| Other people are upset; team s losing resources or cooperation from others; loss of dignity| Help With Consequences| Provide support, more rest, more thinking time| Neutral person to listen to stressed people; time off; more social events; encourage getting away from the office at lunch time; discourage overwork| Suggestions To Overcome Conflict Management. There are many ways to overcome this problem. Here are some suggestions and tips to manage and cope with the conflict management towards organization. * Build a certain and good communication. * As we know communication is a process of i nteract between one person to another.Communication is a tool to convey a message. A good communication can avoid misunderstanding and uncertain information and can directly solve any problem wisely. All person in any organization must know how to build a good communication and know how to react with any problem to a void conflict. If there is something that they might in argue or disagree they have to sit together and come out with a best solution that everyone satisfied. * Don’t ignore conflict. * Conflict in organization can lead a positive outcomes too. Each person in any organization must take a fairly solution and never avoid and ignore the conflict.It is very essential because it can avoid the problem become twice and become bigger and bigger. Conflict might happen in any organization because each person have a different opinion, goals, value and belief. So, everyone must support and help each other to cope the conflict in order to achieve a common goal in the organiza tion. * Have an own conflict management skills. * Skills such us know how negotiate and know how to minimized anger can help and enhance the effectiveness of good working environment. This will make everyone in the organization can achieve a joyful in a workplace.The way everyone carry themselves in the work place can avoid a conflict and misunderstanding between each other. Everyone in any organization must have their own conflict management skills so that every single problem can be solve and minimized easily. Four ways towards organizational performance 1. PM focuses on results, rather than behaviors and activities A common misconception among supervisors is that behaviors and activities are the same as results. Thus, an employee may appear extremely busy, but not be contributing at all toward the goals of the organization.An example is the employee who manually reviews completion of every form and procedure, rather than supporting automation of the review. The supervisor may con clude the employee is very committed to the organization and works very hard, thus, deserving a very high performance rating. 2. Aligns organizational activities and processes to the goals of the organization PM identifies organizational goals, results needed to achieve those goals, measures of effectiveness or efficiency (outcomes) toward the goals, and means (drivers) to achieve the goals.This chain of measurements is examined to ensure alignment with overall results of the organization. 3. Cultivates a system-wide, long-term view of the organization. Richard A. Swanson, in  Performance Improvement Theory and Practice  (Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1, 1999), explains an effective performance improvement process must follow a systems-based approach while looking at outcomes and drivers. Otherwise, the effort produces a flawed picture. For example, laying off people will likely produce short-term profits.However, the organization may eventually experience reduced prod uctivity, resulting in long-term profit loss. 4. Produces meaningful measurements These measurements have a wide variety of useful applications. They are useful in benchmarking, or setting standards for comparison with best practices in other organizations. They provide consistent basis for comparison during internal change efforts. They indicate results during improvement efforts, such as employee training, management development, quality programs, etc. They help ensure equitable and fair treatment to employees based on performance.

Main Kinds of Chemical Reactions