Why I Prefer to Marry Late Essay Example for Free

Why I Prefer to Marry Late Essay For me, marriage is a promise. A promise that we give, without wanting to receive the equivalent reward. Hence, we must have enough ability to maintain this relationship. The salient characteristic of many traditional marriage systems is that women, seem to have little independence, because of education and income. In South Asia, brides are even taken to groom`s family as soon they move into property. In this case, marrying late can provide us opportunities to fulfill and pursue our achievement in education, and therefore have a better social status and income to be financially independent. In addition to be financially independent, this also give us a chance to satisfy ourselves, in accomplishing our goals in lives. And psychologists say that the want for independent success is the main reason why people are marrying at a later time. Besides, marrying late also provides an opportunity to get to know your future companion better. We may often see in the news that many young people get married on impulse, which is, they don’t really get to know each other more. As George Bernard Shaw said, â€Å"Beauty is all very well at first sight; but who ever looks at it when it has been in the house three days?† When two people first met, and they had a crush on each other. In order to show the best of themselves, they tend to hide their drawbacks . However, this lead to a serious problem that they didn’t get to â€Å"know† more about the mate. And as time went by, the drawbacks emerge and they have contradiction in their personality. That`s when young couple decide to get divorced. Nevertheless, marriage is a promise for me, so I`d rather take time to choose the one I love and appreciate his virtue as well as imperfection, rather than presume the one we first met an object to marriage. Because It`s not a game that could be quit when we later on feel tired or bored ,especially when there are children of us. After all, the main function of marriage in most traditional societies is to bring up children. Moreover, because marriage is a promise for me. So I`d choose to marry late so that I could enjoy a free time doing whatever I want, going wherever I like, dating whomever I appreciate without having to care about my husband`s feelings. That`s the time I could broaden my horizons and meet many people  from the opposite sex without a burden. According to the China Daily: â€Å"There`s nothing wrong with a man or woman who is not married by 30. IT`s not about being disrespectful to parents or to social traditions. It`s certainly not a sure sign of pending poor health or psychological problems. â€Å" And according to an article in Helium written by Dawn Hawkins, â€Å"getting married when you are younger doesn`t allow you to grow as a single person quite enough sometimes, there are many things that you learn about yourself such as who you want to be and where you want to go in life as you get older. The older you are , the more chance you have of knowing exactly who you are.† Marriage implies an enormous responsibility, that why marrying late offers the best advantage. And marrying late provide us time to have emotional maturity, that is very crucial in dealing the rigour of married life later. So if you are beyond 36 and still complaining bitterly why a potential mate is yet to notice you, please think it twice. There are many advantages a single life can provide rather than taking a plunge for a wrong reason. Moreover, getting married late means that we could have more tools and resources and not to mention a stable emotion state to back on if the situation would not set well.

Impact of Teamwork on Organisational Problem Solving

Impact of Teamwork on Organisational Problem Solving Can Groups and Teams be seen as the silver bullet to solve organisational problems? Reflect critically on this issue drawing on theory and research. Introduction In recent years, the implementation of groups and teams has become more commonplace in firms: 78% of US workplaces use teams (Allen and Hecht, 2004) and 72% of UK organizations involve their core employees in formal teams (Kersley et al., 2013). However, scholars have generally been divided about the effectiveness of teams in solving challenges in the workplace, with varying empirical results and evidence. Despite their popularity, are groups and teams always beneficial to workplaces? In observing the drawbacks of implementing teams, it is suggested that alternative factors are equally important in solving organizational problems. This essay attempts to show that teams are not the silver bullet for all organizations by critiquing populist theories on benefits of teams, discussing additional problems that may arise from teams and lastly, by questioning the assumptions of this essay. Although Katzenbach and Smith (1993a, p.45) defined team as a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable and working group as a small number of people working in a collaborative style with individual input and accountability, I will use groups and teams interchangeably and not draw a distinction between the two terms for the most part of this essay. This is in line with many writers (e.g. Allen and Hecht, 2004), who regarded them as the same and that teams are two or more people working interdependently towards achieving a common goal. Section 1: Critiquing popular theories on benefits of teams Historical view of teams: Sociotechnical systems theory (STS) The term STS was originally coined by Emery and Trist (1960) to describe systems which involve a complex interaction between people, machines, and the organizations external environment; it was about utilizing the human and technical aspects to make an organization more effective. STS was the basic foundation for the empowerment of teams, arguing that as workers gain more autonomy over their jobs, team members can make greater use of their skills and judgment to better tackle organizational problems (Cohen et al., 1996). Groups were suggested as an alternative to routine Tayloristic and Fordist frameworks by reducing boredom and by allowing workers to be more involved and interested in their tasks. This works in theory, but teams may not be that autonomous or beneficial in practice. Murakami (1997) studied the introduction of teams in fourteen car plants worldwide and although teams were given some autonomy about work distribution and internal leadership, he found that managerial power in the most important areas of car production remained unchallenged. Barker (1993) argued that while teams may appear to give workers more autonomy over their jobs, groups may represent a more subtle and intensive form of control as team members can control each others actions through surveillance or social pressures. Besides that, research has indicated that in becoming group members, individuals often lose their problem-solving facilities, become emotionally segregated and blame others for their failure (Wells, 1980 cited in Sinclair, 1992, p.616). In line with that, Naquin and Tynan (2003) agreed that teams receive joint credit for successes but often blame team failure on an individual member , leading to conflict within the group. Dunphy and Bryant (1996) argued that the implementation of self-managed teams shifts the burden of problem-solving from managers to employees, leading to intensification of work and heightened stress levels. This is in line with Rothschild and Whitt (1986) who revealed that groups can often be a source of stress rather than satisfaction and have a negative effect on employees well-being. Nevertheless, even if some workers enjoy their job more through teams, there is no evidence that this will always lead to improved performance. Some researchers have suggested that job performance leads to job satisfaction but not the reverse (Bagozzi, 1980). And even if it does improve individual performance, it may not necessarily lead to organizational effectiveness in solving problems (Sinclair, 1992). Belbins Team Roles Another theory which popularized team effectiveness was Belbins model of team roles. Belbin identified nine team roles/ contributions that are seen to be crucial for organizational effectiveness (Belbin, 1993). Each team role is considered important because it helps to provide a good balance for achieving tasks. The essential contributions are solving problems, exploring resources, coordinating tasks, imparting drive, evaluating information, developing team members, implementing ideas, perfecting details, and providing knowledge. Some modern workplaces form teams on the basis of Belbins team profiles as they supposedly allow organizations to recognize and use others strengths to best advantage (Belbin, 2014). To a certain extent, Belbins model of teams and team roles may appear to solve certain organizational problems. For example, problems at organizations may occur due to ambiguity and role conflict. When there is role ambiguity, workers are uncertain which responsibilities they should tackle, leading to anxiety. This may also lead to conflict if one worker believes that another is impinging on their role, putting newcomers in a difficult position as they are apprehensive of taking on tasks (Slaughter and Zicker, 2006). By clearly defining team roles using Belbins model, organizations may be able to avoid some of these problems. However, Belbins model has been re-examined with mixed results. For example, Fisher (1996) argued that Belbin team roles have little psychometric support and that it is unreliable to use it as the basis for team roles. Another criticism is that Belbin insinuated that there are only a limited number of ways in which people can usefully contribute to teams when in practice, roles are complex and varied. Imposing team roles onto people and expecting them to contribute to workplaces in a certain way may lead to stereotyping. For example, an individual who is actually more efficient working alone may be accused of being a bad employee just because they are not a team player (Sewell, 2001). Apart from that, Belbins original research mainly focused on upper-management level executives in Britain in the 1970s, consisting mostly of middle-class white men. This does not mean that Belbins theory of teams and team roles cannot be applied to other cultures, but it could be biased as the research was based on a specific demographic. Katzenbach and Smiths Wisdom of Teams Katzenbach and Smith (1993a) argued that teams will always outperform individuals when teams are properly understood and supported. They suggested that the mutual accountability, commitment, and skills of team members will encourage open discussions and critical problem-solving. The better teams will move beyond individual responsibilities and pursue team performance goals like increasing work quality or responding to customers faster, reducing inefficiency problems. Storey (2007) argued that this theory adopts a unitarist view of management where employees and managers are constantly in pursuit of higher productivity, which may not always be true in practice. The main critique is that Katzenbach and Smith wrote from their personal work experiences (Wilson, 2013). Their research had no solid empirical evidence and while they claimed to collect information through interviews, they did not divulge how they analyzed the data. They were also inclined to ignore public service sector or third sector examples, which could make their findings biased. Additionally, this theory played down the intrinsic qualities of organizational problems such as job satisfaction or workers feelings and personal motivations. Metcalf and Linstead (2003) argued that this approach is masculinist as it adopted a view that only emphasized better performance, with the soft components such as sensitivities and feelings of members being marginalized. However, to successfully solve organizational problems, we should consider both masculinist and soft aspects as organizational problems can be related to both. Hence, this theory fails to explain why teams would be the solutio n to all challenges. Section 2: Problems that arise from implementing teams Social loafing Secondly, teams should not be seen as a panacea because they may cause even more organizational problems. One of the problems that arise from teams is social loafing, colloquially known as free riding or laziness. Simply stated, it refers to a situation in which certain members of a group exert less effort than the others (Clegg at al., 2016). Primarily, people exert less effort in groups as they feel less accountable when they know other members will compensate by exerting additional effort on their behalf (Harkins and Szymanski, 1989). Ezzamel and Wilmott (1998) observed workplace social loafing in a company they dubbed StichCo. When teams were introduced to StitchCo, the younger and more inexperienced workers with no responsibilities were less pressured to increase their wages through bonuses. They were seen to reap the advantages of a shared team bonus, working below the minimum level of efficiency while older workers overcompensated for their lack of efforts. This created resentment and conflict among those workers who were working harder. Although challenges occur when implementing team roles as discussed earlier, one way of countering social loafing is by ensuring that team members have clear responsibilities and accountability. Theoretically, one would assume that social loafing would be much less likely to exist in work teams because team pressures can be a powerful source of conformance. Sewell (1998) pointed out that non-performing team members may be pressured to perform or leave through immense social pressures. Hence in some ways, conformance and cohesion can cancel out social loafing. Groupthink Nevertheless, cohesion in groups are not always beneficial to organizations as it may cause another problem: Groupthink. Janis (1982) coined the term Groupthink when he studied historical situations where teams with prestigious and well-educated members make disastrous decisions, such as the Bay of Pigs incident. One key characteristic of Groupthink is when members choose to stand by decisions that the group has committed itself to, despite evidence that these decisions are bad or disturbing the conscience of its members. Janis argued that the more cohesive the group, the more likely it is for each member to avoid creating disunity. It is not so much that the members are afraid of revealing their objections, but that they will readily accept the majority decision without scrutinizing its pros and cons. Groupthink also brings about risk shift, an illusion of invulnerability and enthusiasm for a decision that polarizes the group towards higher risk. For example, in May 2015, six banks were fined a total of $5.7 billion for manipulating foreign exchange markets. The traders appeared to reinforce each others belief that they were not going to be arrested, allowing them to knowingly break the law (King and Lawley, 2016). The concept of groupthink therefore undermines one of the main argued benefits of teams: workers sharing multiple perspectives to examine potential risks and to better solve problems. However, Janis argued that this does not mean all cohesive groups suffer from groupthink and that mild Groupthink may not necessarily influence the quality of a groups decision. Furthermore, there are ways to avoid Groupthink: the team might encourage people to voice their opinions by establishing that any critique of the teams decision is encouraged or some members may be assigned to analyze all decisions in a critical way. Alternatively, the organization may set up several independent groups working on the same problem and compare the decisions reached. Section 3: Questioning the assumptions of this essay Groups vs Teams We will now discuss if it is possible for teams to be the silver bullet when they are defined correctly or implemented in the right settings. One of the main assumptions of this essay is that groups and teams are the same. However, Katzenbach and Smith (1993b) argued that while many workplaces claimed to use teams, in practice, teams are uncommon as most workers are in what they called working groups. Working group members mostly work independently and focus on individual performance whereas high performance team members focus everything on the team. Since team members rely on each other and focus on team outcome rather than individual needs, they can exploit each others strengths to better tackle challenges. So perhaps, the failure of teams found by researchers such as Hackman (1998) were due to people using the term team too loosely in the workplace, when they were in fact, the failure of working groups. Katzenbach and Smith (1993b) argued that it is important to distinct working groups and teams so that managers can make better decisions about whether, when, or how to encourage and use teams. By properly defining teams, we can learn when they should be seen as a solution to organizational problems. Size of teams and organizational context This essay also used Allen and Hechts definition of a team: two or more people working interdependently towards achieving a common goal (2004). This definition is quite vague, when in workplaces, the size of a team is very important and should be defined according to the task. For example, larger teams may be inefficient for routine tasks due to overcrowding, but they are good for complex tasks as smaller teams will not have enough resources or abilities (Clegg at al., 2016). Nevertheless, Laughlin (2011) found that high ability individuals can outperform groups composed of two, three, four or five low ability members. So while team size definitely has an effect on team performance, more research needs to be done to fully understand how different factors mediate the effect of team size on effectiveness. This brings us to the next assumption of this essay: groups and teams are not the silver bullet for all organizations. However, teams can be very effective if they are used in the suitable organizational context. Wright Cordery (1999) proposed conditions for teams to succeed and fail in outperforming other organizational frameworks and there is evidence that system-wide changes are better at solving organizational problems than individual changes (Bacon Blyton, 2000). Thus, it is critical to recognize that effective problem-solving does not magically occur simply by introducing teams; time, high-level resources, and revamped support structures need to be in place to create a high performance team-based organization. Only then, perhaps teams can be perceived as a silver bullet to organizational problems, although creating the perfect setting for every task would be nearly impossible. Conclusion In a nutshell, this essay argued that teams are not the panacea by examining opposing views and limitations of popular theories such as STS, Belbins team roles, and Katzenbach and Smiths Wisdom of teams. It also discussed additional problems that may arise and questioned the assumptions of this essay to demonstrate the pros and cons of teams in different situations. Due to the word limit, this essay did not discuss all the challenges which would prevent teams from working effectively (e.g. resistance to teams, leadership of teams). Nevertheless, the original essay question remains important as teams can be effective or destructive depending on how and where they are implemented, so they should not be used sweepingly across organizations. Instead, future research on teams should be done in various industrial settings to properly define teams and to examine other factors which would affect their effectiveness in problem-solving. References Allen, N.J. and Hecht, T.D., 2004. The romance of teams: Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), pp.439-461. Bacon, N. and Blyton, P., 2000. High road and low road teamworking: Perceptions of management rationales and organizational and human resource outcomes. Human relations, 53(11), pp.1425-1458. Bagozzi, R.P., 1980. Performance and satisfaction in an industrial sales force: An examination of their antecedents and simultaneity. The Journal of Marketing, pp.65-77. Barker, J.R., 1993. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative science quarterly, pp.408-437. Belbin, R.M., 1993. Team roles at work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Belbin UK, 2014. How toà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Use Belbin to Increase Employee Engagement. [pdf] Cambridge: Belbin. Available at: http://www.belbin.com/media/1173/belbin-howtousebelbintoincreaseemployeeengagement-oct2014.pdf> [Accessed 23 December 2016] Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. Pitsis, T., 2016. Managing Organizations. Fourth edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E. and Spreitzer, G.M., 1996. A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human relations, 49(5), pp.643-676. Dunphy, D. and Bryant, B., 1996. Teams: panaceas or prescriptions for improved performance?. Human relations, 49(5), pp.677-699. Emery, F.E. and Trist, E.L.,1960. Socio-technical Systems. In C.W. Churchman M. Verhurst (Eds), Management Science, Models and Techniques, Vol. 2, pp.83-97. London: Pergamon Press. Ezzamel, M. and Willmott, H., 1998. Accounting for teamwork: A critical study of group-based systems of organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp.358-396. Fisher, S.G., Macrosson, W.D.K. and Sharp, G., 1996. Further evidence concerning the Belbin team role self-perception inventory. Personnel review, 25(2), pp.61-67. Hackman, J.R. and Tindale, R.S., 1998. Why teams dont work. Theory and research on small groups. New York: Plenum Press Harkins, S.G. and Szymanski, K., 1989. Social loafing and group evaluation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(6), pp.934-941. Janis, I.L., 1982. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (Vol. 349). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K., 1993a. The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K., 1993b. The discipline of teams. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G. and Oxenbridge, S., 2013. Inside the workplace: findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Routledge. King, D. and Lawley, S., 2016. Organizational behaviour. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Laughlin, P.R., 2011. Group problem solving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Metcalf, B. and Linstead, A., 2003. Gendering Teamwork: Reà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ Writing the Feminine. Gender, Work Organization, 10(1), pp.94-119. Murakami, T., 1997. The autonomy of teams in the car industry a cross national comparison. Work, Employment Society, 11(4), pp.749-758. Naquin, C.E. and Tynan, R.O., 2003. The team halo effect: why teams are not blamed for their failures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), pp.332-340. Rothschild, J. and Whitt, J.A., 1989. The cooperative workplace: Potentials and dilemmas of organisational democracy and participation. CUP Archive. Sewell, G., 1998. The discipline of teams: The control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative science quarterly, pp.397-428. Sewell, G., 2001. What Goes Around, Comes Around Inventing a Mythology of Teamwork and Empowerment. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(1), pp.70-89. Sinclair, A., 1992. The tyranny of a team ideology. Organization studies, 13(4), pp.611-626. Slaughter, J.E. and Zickar, M.J., 2006. A new look at the role of insiders in the newcomer socialization process. Group Organization Management, 31(2), pp.264-290. Storey, J.W. (2007) Human resources management: A critical text. Third edition. London: Cengage Delmar Learning. Wilson, F.M., 2013. Organizational behaviour and work: a critical introduction. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wright, B.M. and Cordery, J.L., 1999. Production uncertainty as a contextual moderator of employee reactions to job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), pp.456-463.

A Comprehensive Study of the Satellite Radio Industry: :: essays research papers

INTRODUCTION   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Would people be willing to pay $12.50/month for commercial free radio beamed right to their car or home. Well two companies and many big investors are betting about $3 billion dollars that people are willing to do just that. In 1997, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) granted a portion of the S-band spectrum for satellite radio and two companies purchased use of these bands and started the only two companies competing in the satellite radio business today, namely Sirius and XM. Analysts like William Kidd of CE Unterberg Towpin, predict satellite radio will generate about $10 billion a year in revenues by 2007 (McClean, 2001). However, to date neither of these companies has earned a dime. According to industry analyst though, â€Å"its not whether satellite radio will take off-rather it’s a matter of how fast.† (Helyar, 2004). Despite lofty predictions, satellite radio has some big issues to overcome before it becomes a serious threat to the $ 19.6 billion per year terrestrial radio industry. The article that appeared in Fortune entitled â€Å"Radio’s Stern Challenge† by John Helyar discusses Sirius’ marketing strategy to not only take market share from the entrenched and free terrestrial radio industry but also to beat its only competitor, XM. The Fortune article presents how a fat and lazy radio industry has failed to react to an eroding listening base and an increasing number of competing technologies. Issues like lack of attention to programming, no on-air talent, and an increase of 166% in the time devoted to commercials have driven listeners away from radio. Teens aged 12-17 spend 11% less time listening to radio compared to five years ago and adults 18-24 spend 13% less time compared to five years ago (Helyar, 2004). The article further discusses that terrestrial radio has much to fear from competing technologies like satellite radio, streaming digital radio on the Internet, and Apple’s iPod. What terrestrial radio does have in its favor is that it’s free compared to any of the current competing technologies like satellite radio. However, satellite radio is banking on a commercial free format to steal listeners away from terrestrial radio. Sirius offers 65 commercial free channels of music and 55 news, sports and talk stations. And the one thing that satellite has over its less lofty competitor is that you can’t loose the signal as you drive across America. The two major competitors for the satellite radio listeners are Sirius and XM.

The History of Stalingrad Essay -- Stalingrad War Battles European His

The History of Stalingrad â€Å"Stalingrad is the scene of the costliest and most stubborn battle in this war. The battle fought there to its desperate finish may turn out to be among the decisive battles in the long history of war†¦In the scale of its intensity, its destructiveness, and its horror, Stalingrad has no parallel. It engaged the full strength of the two biggest armies in Europe and could fit into no lesser framework than that of a life-and death conflict which encompasses the earth† New York Times, February 4, 1943 The battle fought between the Soviet Red Army and the Nazi Wehrmacht over the â€Å"city of Stalin† for four long months in the fall and winter of 1942-3 stands as not only the most important battle of the Eastern front during World War II, but as the greatest battle ever fought. Germany’s defeat at Stalingrad ended three years of almost uninterrupted victory and signaled the beginning of the end of the Third Reich. In this way, Stalingrad’s significance was projected beyond the two main combatants, extending to all corners of the world. This paper is not meant to be a military history of the battle; I am not qualified to offer such an account. It is also not an examination of why Russia won (and Germany lost). The goal of this paper is to explain why this particular conflict, fought at this particular point in time, and in this particular place became the defining moment of World War II. During the late summer of 1942, Germany’s position in the Soviet Union appeared to be dominant. The Russian winter offensive in front of Moscow had succeeded in relieving the pressure on the capital but had failed to make any substantial gains beyond a few miles of breathing space. The Germans had managed to stabilize the situation, inflicting severe casualties on the Russians before opening their own offensive in southern Russia in the spring and summer of 1942. This offensive, like the initial attack on the Soviet Union, caught the Russians (who expected a second assault on Moscow) completely off guard. Germany’s success was immense, and by the end of July the Wehrmacht had reached the Caucasus Mountains and the Volga River, with the oil-rich cities of Astrakhan, Grozny, and Baku in its sights. The first fourteen months of the war had been a debacle of monumental proportions for the Russians. During this time, the Germans had occupied more than a... ... the regime began to make concrete plans to overthrow it. Stalingrad was the beginning of the end for the Third Reich.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  World War II was filled with turning points, including Midway, El Alamein, and Moscow. Stalingrad, however, was not simply a turning point. It was the decisive battle of the most violent and destructive war ever fought. It is a fitting testament to the importance of Stalingrad that General Chuikov, the tough-as-nails commander of the 62nd Army that defended the city, would later lead his men in the final battle of the European war, the assault on Berlin. Works Cited Baldwin, Hanson. Battles Lost and Won. New York: Smithmark Publishers, 1966. Craig, William. Enemy at the Gates. New York: Readers Digest Press, 1973. Elting, Mary and Robert T. Weaver, Battles: How They Are Won. Garden City: Doubleday, Doran and Company, 1944. Overy, Richard. Russia’s War. New York: Penguin Books, 1997. Roberts, Geoffrey. Victory at Stalingrad: The Battle that Changed History. London: Pearson Education, 2002. Stalingrad, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1943. Weinberg, Gerhard L. A World At Arms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Women and Marriage in Jane Austens Pride and Prejudice Essay -- Pride

Women and Marriage in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice And they lived happily ever after... Or did they? Pride and Prejudice, a captivating novel written by Jane Austen, is the story of Elizabeth and her adventure challenging society and ending up deep in true love. Pride and Prejudice takes place in a town outside of London called Hertfordshire, where the reader follows Elizabeth, her friends, and her family as they search for love in the nineteenth century. The author writes of Elizabeth's journey of not only finding herself, but finding true love with Mr. Darcy in the end. Austen herself never married, something that was very untraditional for her time. She went against normalcy and knew that marriage was for love, not money as many people often recognized it as. This viewpoint from the author is drawn out for us through a major idea in the novel. The theme of women and marriage traditions in the nineteenth century is clearly demonstrated through many of the characters in Austen's novel. The opening sentence reveals the theme to the reader quite straightforwardly. Auste...

Sales People

Chapter 4 Salespeople Work In Two Markets 1. Consumer Markets 2. Business Markets: Industrial or organizational markets FACTORS INFLUENCING ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN AND STRUCTURE * Examine customers in each market. * Determine the types of sales jobs needed to serve a market. * Note the job activities salespeople must do. * Design sales jobs around customers. * Set up the sales force organizational structure, which includes the various sales jobs and geographic territories.Application Of The Sales Job Classifications 1. Order Takers: wait for the costumer to order 2. Order Getters: obtain, retain, and increase business with customers. This salesperson must often create discontent with what the prospect already has and has to overcome the most powerful and obstinate resistance. THE LINE ORGANIZATION In the pure line organization, the chief executive – usually the president – does the decision making for the firm. The president has complete authority.Line authority means tha t people in management positions have formal authority to direct and control immediate subordinates. Staff authority is narrower and includes the right to advise, recommend, and counsel in the staff specialists’ areas of expertise. Geographic Specialization Many large corporations are organized by geographic territory. This type of organization is generally used by companies with more than strictly local distribution of their products Product Specialization Another common type of organization in large companies is based on the firm’s product.The entire company may be organized by product, with separate sales, advertising, marketing, and so on, along with staffs for each, or some functional units may remain centralized. Customer Specialization Companies with several separate and distinct markets accounting for major portions of their sales often organize based on these markets or customers. Combination of Design Elements Many companies organize on the basis of some comb ination of functional, geographic, product, or customer design.

Zoe’s Tale PART I Chapter Five

There was a tap on my door, a rat-a-tat that I gave Hickory to use when I was nine, when I made it a secret member of my secret club. I made Dickory a secret member of an entirely different secret club. Same with Mom, Dad and Babar. I was all about the secret clubs when I was nine, apparently. I couldn't even tell you what the name of that secret club was now. But Hickory still used the knock whenever my bedroom door was closed. â€Å"Come in,† I said. I was standing by my bedroom window. Hickory came in. â€Å"It's dark in here,† it said. â€Å"That's what happens when it's late and the lights are out,† I said. â€Å"I heard you walking about,† Hickory said. â€Å"I came to see if you needed anything.† â€Å"Like a warm glass of milk?† I said. â€Å"I'm fine, Hickory. Thank you.† â€Å"Then I'll leave you,† Hickory said, backing out. â€Å"No,† I said. â€Å"Come here a minute. Look.† Hickory walked over to stand next to me at the window. He looked where I pointed, to two figures in the road in front of our house. Mom and Dad. â€Å"She has been out there for some time,† Hickory said. â€Å"Major Perry joined her a few minutes ago.† â€Å"I know,† I said. â€Å"I saw him walk out.† I heard her walk out, too, about an hour earlier; the squeaking of the springs on the screen door had gotten me out of bed. I hadn't been sleeping, anyway. Thinking about leaving Huckleberry and colonizing somewhere new was keeping my brain up, and then made me pace around. The idea of leaving was sinking in. It was making me twitchier than I thought it would. â€Å"You know about the new colony?† I asked Hickory. â€Å"We do,† Hickory said. â€Å"Lieutenant Sagan informed us earlier this evening. Dickory also filed a request to our government for more information.† â€Å"Why do you call them by their rank?† I asked Hickory. My brain was looking for tangents at the moment, it seemed, and this was a good one. â€Å"Mom and Dad. Why don't you call them ‘Jane' and ‘John' like everyone else?† â€Å"It's not appropriate,† Hickory said. â€Å"It's too familiar.† â€Å"You've lived with us for seven years,† I said. â€Å"You might be able to risk a little familiarity.† â€Å"If you wish us to call them ‘John' and ‘Jane,' then we will do so,† Hickory said. â€Å"Call them what you want,† I said. â€Å"I'm just saying that if you want to call them by their first names, you could.† â€Å"We will remember that,† Hickory said. I doubted there would be a change in protocol anytime soon. â€Å"You'll be coming with us, right?† I asked, changing the subject. â€Å"To the new colony.† I hadn't assumed that Hickory and Dickory would not be joining us, which when I thought about it might not have been a smart assumption. â€Å"Our treaty allows it,† Hickory said. â€Å"It will be up to you to decide.† â€Å"Well, of course I want you to come,† I said. â€Å"We'd just as soon leave Babar behind than not take you two.† â€Å"I am happy to be in the same category as your dog,† Hickory said. â€Å"I think that came out wrong,† I said. Hickory held up a hand. â€Å"No,† it said. â€Å"I know you did not mean to imply Dickory and I are like pets. You meant to imply Babar is part of your household. You would not leave without him.† â€Å"He's not just part of the household,† I said. â€Å"He's family. Slobbery, sort of dim family. But family. You're family, too. Weird, alien, occasionally obtrusive family. But family.† â€Å"Thank you, Zoe,† Hickory said. â€Å"You're welcome,† I said, and suddenly felt shy. Conversations with Hickory were going weird places today. â€Å"That's why I asked about you calling my parents by rank, you know. It's not a usual family thing.† â€Å"If we are truly part of your family, then it is safe to say it's not a usual family,† Hickory said. â€Å"So it would be hard to say what would be usual for us.† This got a snort from me. â€Å"Well, that's true,† I said. I thought for a moment. â€Å"What is your name, Hickory?† I asked. â€Å"Hickory,† it said. â€Å"No, I mean, what was your name before you came to live with us,† I said. â€Å"You had to have been named something before I named you Hickory. And Dickory, too, before I named it that.† â€Å"No,† it said. â€Å"You forget. Before your biological father, Obin did not have consciousness. We did not have a sense of self, or the need to describe ourselves to ourselves or to others.† â€Å"That would make it hard to do anything with more than two of you,† I said. â€Å"Saying ‘hey, you' only goes so far.† â€Å"We had descriptors, to help us in our work,† Hickory said. â€Å"They were not the same as names. When you named Dickory and me, you gave us our true names. We became the first Obin to have names at all.† â€Å"I wish I had known that at the time,† I said, after I took this in. â€Å"I would have given you names that weren't from a nursery rhyme.† â€Å"I like my name,† Hickory said. â€Å"It's popular among other Obin as well. ‘Hickory' and ‘Dickory' both.† â€Å"There are other Obin Hickorys,† I said. â€Å"Oh, yes,† Hickory said. â€Å"Several million, now.† I had no possible intelligible response to that. I turned my attention back to my parents, who were still standing in the road, entwined. â€Å"They love each other,† Hickory said, following my gaze. I glanced back at it. â€Å"Not really where I was expecting the conversation to go, but okay,† I said. â€Å"It makes a difference,† Hickory said. â€Å"In how they speak to each other. How they communicate with each other.† â€Å"I suppose it does,† I said. Hickory's observation was an understatement, actually. John and Jane didn't just love each other. The two of them were nuts for each other, in exactly the sort of way that's both touching and embarrassing to a teenage daughter. Touching because who doesn't want their parents to love each other, right down to their toes? Embarrassing because, well. Parents. Not supposed to act like goofs about each other. They showed it in different ways. Dad was the most obvious about it, but I think Mom felt it more intensely than he did. Dad was married before; his first wife died back on Earth. Some part of his heart was still with her. No one else had any claim on Jane's heart, though. John had all of it, or all of it that was supposed to belong to your spouse. No matter how you sliced it, though, there's nothing either of them wouldn't do for each other. â€Å"That's why they're out here,† I said to Hickory. â€Å"In the road right now, I mean. Because they love each other.† â€Å"How so?† Hickory asked. â€Å"You said it yourself,† I said. â€Å"It makes a difference in how they communicate.† I pointed again to the two of them. â€Å"Dad wants to go and lead this colony,† I said. â€Å"If he didn't, he would have just said no. It's how he works. He's been moody and out of sorts all day because he wants it and he knows there are complications. Because Jane loves it here.† â€Å"More than you or Major Perry,† Hickory said. â€Å"Oh, yeah,† I said. â€Å"It's where she's been married. It's where she's had a family. Huckleberry is her homeworld. He'd say no if she doesn't give him permission to say yes. So that's what she's doing, out there.† Hickory peered out again at the silhouettes of my parents. â€Å"She could have said so in the house,† it said. I shook my head. â€Å"No,† I said. â€Å"Look how she's looking up. Before Dad came out, she was doing the same thing. Standing there and looking up at the stars. Looking for the star our new planet orbits, maybe. But what she's really doing is saying good-bye to Huckleberry. Dad needs to see her do it. Mom knows that. It's part of the reason she's out there. To let him know she's ready to let this planet go. She's ready to let it go because he's ready to let it go.† â€Å"You said it was part of the reason she's out there,† Hickory said. â€Å"What's the other part?† â€Å"The other part?† I asked. Hickory nodded. â€Å"Oh. Well. She needs to say good-bye for herself, too. She's not just doing it for Dad.† I watched Jane. â€Å"A lot of who she is, she became here. And we may never get back here. It's hard to leave your home. Hard for her. I think she's trying to find a way to let it go. And that starts by saying good-bye to it.† â€Å"And you?† Hickory said. â€Å"Do you need to say good-bye?† I thought about it for a minute. â€Å"I don't know,† I admitted. â€Å"It's funny. I've already lived on four planets. Well, three planets and a space station. I've been here longest, so I guess it's my home more than any of the rest of them. I know I'll miss some of the things about it. I know I'll miss some of my friends. But more than any of that†¦ I'm excited. I want to do this. Colonize a new world. I want to go. I'm excited and nervous and a little scared. You know?† Hickory didn't say anything to this. Outside the window, Mom had walked away a little from Dad, and he was turning to head back into the house. Then he stopped and turned back to Mom. She held out her hand to him. He came to her, took it. They began to walk down the road together. â€Å"Good-bye, Huckleberry,† I said, whispering the words. I turned away from the window and let my parents have their walk.