What factors account for the current level of public indebtedness in Essay

What factors account for the current level of public indebtedness in the UK and what economic and fiscal measures can the UK Government use to reduce that level of debt in the next 5 years - Essay Example Even in the countries with no major affected of the financial crisis, the national debt rose approximately 20% in 2007 to 2009. United Kingdom is one of the five countries with systaltic financial crisis. In these countries the national debt is approximately 75%. Like the rest of the world, UK is greatly affected by the financial crisis that led to an increased budget deficit and public debt. The situation was alarming as the public sector total debt was  £1, 231 .7 billion by the end of November 2013, equal to 76.6% of GDP (ONS public sector finances, 2013). During the global financial crisis from mid 1990s, public sector debt fell to 29% of GDP. UK national debt witnessed an increase of 37% of the GDP from 2002 – 2007. Even during the long period of expansion the public debt in the country kept on increasing. The main reason for this was considered to be the countries increased spending on health and education (ONS public sector finances, 2013). Not only that the spending on social security was raised as well (Ecomincs Help, 2013). In UK the other reason behind the sharp increase in public debt are: The rescission 2008-2013 particularly affected the housing industry resulting the falling of house prices, low taxes and unemployment. The country has seen a sharp decline in the income tax receipt and corporation tax. These factors later exposed the structural deficit. Many financial institutions bailed out that included Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds and other banks. Debt is considered to be a two edged sward. It is its use and application that can minimize its adverse effect. If utilized wisely it can no doubt be a support in the rough times, but if not it can result in a disaster. Still the importance of borrowing cannot be ignored in the present times. The role of borrowing at the public level has gained importance after the great recession and the public borrowing globally has increased

How did the womens rights movement of the 19th century emerge out of Essay - 1

How did the womens rights movement of the 19th century emerge out of abolition activism - Essay Example These included the rights to vote, the right to vie for different offices and the right to be treated equal with the men irrespective of their gender. This led to the development of the women’s right movement, a movement that changed the political alignment and environment in the United States. The development of the women’s right movement began immediately after the abolition of the slave trade and most of the founding members were active freedom fighters in the abolitionist movement. In this paper, the impacts of the abolitionist movement and the manner in which it shaped the formation of the women’s right movement will be determined. The pioneer leaders of the Women’s right movement who previously served in the abolitionist movement will be discussed to show the connection between the two movements and how one inspired the other. The abolitionist movement played an essential role in inspiring the development of the women’s right and women suffrage movement of the 19th century. Women’s right movement was based on the principles and experience of the founding mothers who had witnessed the efforts of the abolitionist freedom fighters in their effort to achieve social justice (Maternal association 54). The need to improve human condition and remove the element of slavery within the society of the United States oiled the abolitionist freedom movement and this motivated the formation of other groups that agitated for the attainment of equal social justice for all irrespective of the color and race. The history of feminism in the United States can be better understood by investigating the connection between the women suffrage movement and the abolitionist movement. During the active years of the abolitionist movement before the end of the civil war, many women leaders participated as facilitators and spies for the men who were active in the movement

Issues of Organizational Politics in the Workplace

Issues of Organizational Politics in the Workplace Introduction Organizations, like other institutions that bring together human interactions, are bound to have persons of diverse positions in the pecking order with divergent opinions and beliefs. Such divergent opinions and beliefs are manifested in the form of political posturing, and can at times bring an organizations activities to a standstill. Yet these politics in the organizations cannot be circumvented, as a direct consequence of the composite nature of organizational behavior and structure. Arguments may subsist as to whether organizational politics are beneficial or detrimental to the effective running of an organization. Such arguments are informed by the upshots of dissenting views within the organization, whether hierarchical or across departments, that have functional interdependencies. Nevertheless, a clear comprehension and appreciation of the complexity of an organization, regarding its behavioral and structural attributes, will be cognizant of the reality that politics is an in trinsic composition of any human-managed institution. Organizational politics are normally so complexly interwoven within the organizational structure that employee interactions, traditions, activities, performances and results are tremendously affected and shaped by them. It is necessary therefore to understand the impact of politics on organizations and try to channel the employee energy into meaningful output that does not undermine the overriding goals of the organization. Roots of Organizational Politics Organizational politics has varied and subjective definitions depending on the nature of the firm. Pfeiffer (1981, p. 7) describes politics as those activities taken within organizations to acquire, develop, and use power and other resources to obtain ones preferred outcomes in a situation in which there is uncertainty or dissensus about choices. This definition by Pfeiffer not only reveals the tight rope that managers have walk when carrying out their managerial duties, but it also unmasks the selfish interests that are always vested in organizations between and among departments. In fact organizational politics could be identified as the selfish and scheming behavior of employees and departments to advance vested interests at other employees and departments expense. These selfish interests are manifested through the scramble for organizational resources, employee and inter-departmental conflicts, struggle for power and headship and strategic control effected by managers, supervisor s and departments. These managers, supervisors and departments in the organization will carry execute these activities with the intentions of getting power, cultivating individual significance or stature, accessing sensitive and valuable information, concealing true intentions and crafting alliances. Browsing through the bulk of management literature one gets the impression that organizational management is a straightforward consensual performance unit, where concurrences on institutional goals readily abide and where managers, supervisors and subordinates freely communicate and merge their individual or departmental interests with those of entire organization. Some of these literatures claim that conflicts in the workplace can be totally eliminated by communication and transparency, or by laying off sections of the workforce that exhibit dissenting opinions. Such perceptions of organizations are diametric to the research findings of activities and processes within institutions, which reveal the existence of conflicts at all levels. Indeed, Henry Mintzberg (1989) posits that organizational politics is not an upshot of structure but power, and therefore communication and transparency cannot deracinate politics. Mintzberg goes ahead to assert that organizations only function on the foundation of influential systems like politics, authority, expertise and ideology. He adds authority, ideology, or expertise-have some basis of legitimacy. But sometimes those means are used to pursue ends that are illegitimate (Mintzberg 1989, p. 249). It is clear therefore that the organization management is not a rational process. It is easy to understand the root of an organizations politics once we understand the diverse values existent in the system. Different values by different departmental managers in an organization can foster divergent notions as to which part the organization should follow to realize development. This is always the primary cause of organizational conflict; divergent values. It is factual that departmental managers sometimes make arbitrary choices in the workplace and they always cover up their choices by politics. Politics will be used by some managers to rationalize some of their choices when a review into their decisions holds that their choices lacked empirical backing. In short, when a managers decision appears to lack empirical and supportive evidence, the manager will attempt frame the problem in a different way and rally colleague who are sympathetic to him or her. Framing a problem differently is always advised by the values of the people who the manager will be hoping to get backing from. Other than values, special interests subsist in every organization from the top to the bottom. The diversity in special interests is exhibited in aspects like funding for projects, allocation of resources to departmental units and career outlooks. Employees, especially managerial ones, are always ambitious in their career outlooks and this creates rivalry within the hierarchical ladder. But the rivalry over career interests is not as clearly manifested as the scramble for funding and resources (Bacharach Lawler 1980). The division of labor in the organization means a firm is partitioned into functional units also called departments. These demarcated departments are a sure source of political alignments as they line up employees against functional goals, which may not necessary go parallel with each other. To illustrate the causal political influence of departments on organizational set up, let us consider a scenario where the marketing department seeks to boost sales by improving delivery time and diversifying company products, while the production department endeavors to reduce the variety of products and having the least possible inventory. Such a scenario can only result in the alignment of employees in the two departments to the interests of their departments. Pfeiffer observes that the subunit differences that emerge from the division of labor are reinforced by differences in the training, backgrounds, and prior socialization of individuals recruited into different subunits (Pfeiffer 1981, p 73). Intrinsically, employees will subliminally have their allegiance to their departments and will side with it in case conflicts arise in the overall set up. The differences that exist between line and staff can also cause conflicts. R.D Aragwal notes that the relationship between line and staff are often characterized more by conflict than cooperation. Staff specialists complain that line managers are resistant to their ideas and line managers complain that staff managers are sky-gazing specialists with no comprehension of practical solutions (Agarwal 1983, p. 151). These posturings in the workplace are prevalent because of a number of reasons. Agarwal lists these reasons as: the evident ambition and idiosyncratic behaviors of the staff managers; the apprehension of the staff in justifying its organizational survival and get the appreciation for its efforts; the dependency of senior staff employees on line staff for their incumbent positions; indistinct designation of staff roles; and ignorance by higher management. Another source of conflict could be the reality that top managers seek to place themselves in positions that seem very approving in the eyes of the chief executive officers, directors or heads of departments. It is clear, like mentioned previously, that managers are very ambitious and seek promotions. But it is also crystal clear that as the hierarchical organization ladder goes up, the number of plum positions gets fewer and fewer. This fuels competition and rivalry among employees seeking a similar position. Because of the simple fact that promotions require credibility of a candidate, prospective promotion employees will attempt to outdo each other and triumph in small competitive conflicts. It is the attempts to prevail in smaller conflicts that reveal hidden agendas, which later set the stage for larger political battles. The small conflicts always result in underlying alliances and unspoken networks that are the basis of attaining power. Positively Exploiting Organizational Politics The comprehension of an organizations political set up is extremely important for management to steer the firm towards its objectives. Internally trained managers, supervisors and departmental heads will have a plus of acquaintance with general political circumstances existing in the company (various alliances and networks of influence, which can unlock an impasse or create one). Poached managers-those brought trained by other firms-ought to apply significant efforts to study and appreciate the prevailing organizational politics, by careful observation and conscientious interaction with various factions of employees. Buchannan and Badham (2008) hold that some of the pointers accessible for managers, supervisors and department heads for assessing the political environment are: overall employee satisfaction in organizational role, positive reaction to inventive ideas, decision-making efficiency and swift and speedy discharging of decisions. Insight is fundamental for management to take advantage of open channels and repress retrogressive organizational politics, and equally  boost their personal credibility.   Buchannan and Badham also hold that outstanding managers make use of political influence accessible to them in various situations so as to uphold the overriding interests of the organization. The moment a manager comprehensively appreciates the unique settings that cause the employees in an organization to shift loyalties towards particular special interests; the leaders can use the information about the nature of these politics to the benefit of the organization. A manager with an understanding of the politics of the organization surely has leverage that can enable him use the politics and graduate to higher headship position, with excellent orientation of institutional politics. With proper political orientation; a manager can proficiently time an opening to bring to light his or her contribution to the organization; guarantee that higher management will back delicate initiative or choices; utilize apposite personnel to communicate their message across; and respect the pecking orde r regardless of the hurdles it produce. Political insight is always tested when handling aspects like changes in the management or management crises. It is imperative a leader identifies the factions that are going to back him against those that will try to undermine his or her credibility. Unquestionably, managers are source of organizational influence, power and obviously politics. Because people inherently have needs and wishes and leaders possess the capability to offer these needs and wishes, leaders who accomplish or deliver these wants have power. Dennis Wong writes, The most general use of the word power in English is as a synonym for capacity, skill, or talent. This use encompasses the capacity to engage in certain kinds of performance (1979, p. 1). Managers can greatly repress political environment that has a negative effect on the attitude of employees and organizational outputs by linking employee wants and organizational objectives, in such a manner that realization of shared objectives also causes routine realization of personal needs. Managers, supervisors, and heads of departments must recognize that organizational politics is a result of the traditions of trust in the institution, which is created through rationalized values and promoted by communicatio n and transparency. Communication and transparency in processes and duties is crucial in generating a climate where cut-throat organizational politics does not completely replace progressive traditions that place importance on achievement of organizational goals. Politics in the organizational setting has rules and the sooner a manager or leader deciphers the basics, the sooner he or she will build alliances and networks that serve his or her interests. Organizational politics has pros and cons and can sometimes result in loss of job or can alternatively result in promotion, depending on who is calling the shots. Organizational politics is not confined to the higher management as every member of the firm from senior chief executive, department heads, supervisors and normal employees participates in power games at one point. Gilbert Fairholm nevertheless observes that Older group members use it more than those newly inducted into the organization. It is beyond doubt an instrument for securing organizational rewards (2009, p.38). The basics are simple: respect the chain of command, seek favoritism by appearing credible, improve on speed of decision making and avoid stepping on too many peoples shoes. To be the best; be driven by factual data, c reate alliances, admit mistakes, unravel motives of allies and rivals, align your interests with the organizations goals, seek common ground in stand-offs, and always agree to disagree (Forster Browne 1996). Conclusion Organizational politics is a contentious issue in many firms and has been the subject of studies by academic writers who have sought to understand the impact of organizational politics in the running of modern organizations. Once considered a hidden power dynamic, many organizations are now embracing the reality that human are inherently political animals and possess diverse values and notions regarding what aspects of organizational life are rational and what are not. Empirical data from renowned sociologists like Dennis Wong to management academician like Jeffery Pfeiffer all agree that suppressing organization culture is futile because human intrinsically compete for supremacy and survival. The workplace, being an area where most humans spend averagely 8 hours of their lifetimes has been transformed into a political arena. In an arena where dependencies prominently subsist, where there exist divergent targets and beliefs regarding innovation and technology use and where scarcity o f resources may exist, it is hard not to find competition for resources and stature. While a host of literatures on the subject of organizational politics might spend a considerable volume of their analysis on the merits or demerits of the contentious subject, most of them conclusively appreciate the reality that it is difficult to circumvent politics. Politics is about power and influence, and so is the organization.

Computers in the Classroom :: Education Teaching

Computers in the Classroom Technology is increasingly becoming part of our everyday life. We can think back to a time when we did not even know what a computer was and all we had was the telephone, radio, and television. Now, we cannot go a day without using my computer and the internet to do something that we need to get done. When did it all change? Everything is happening so fast. We remember going to school and all that we were allowed to use was paper and pencil and we are only twenty and twenty-two years old. When we think about how quickly things have changed, we can only image what it’s going to be like for the next generation. Everyday there is something new coming out into the technology market whether it be, an upgrade to a software package or a new model for a computer. We have come to the realization that as soon as we buy a product, such as a new computer or printer that within a month or less, it is essentially out dated. The reason for that is that as soon as the companies such as Hewett Packard put a new product out on the market, they have already begun work on a new model to improve the one that they just put out. Not only have computers become part of everyday life; they have also become an essential part of instruction in the classroom for both teachers and students. Throughout this paper, we will be discussing several different aspects of why computers are important tool in the classroom. The job of a teacher is to engage students in learning. Computers are engaging learning tools because they reinforce the concepts which are being taught in the classroom. In the past ten years from Kindergarten through college, teachers and students have embraced information technology. Eight-five percent of children know more about computers and the Internet then both their parents (http://www.davidpearcesnyder.com/computers_and_classrooms.htm, n.d). When computers are used in an interactive mode it enhances the average young person’s ability to learn. Some examples of inactive mode include video games, educational games, and chat rooms. In addition, CD-ROMs allow students to learn to read faster and retain more information. In high school, three fourths of students prefer researching school assignments on the Internet (http://www.

The Destructive Cross-Examination of Socrates

Socrates spent most of his life in Athens. During his life he witnessed the rise and glory of Athens and the rapid decline of Athens during the Peloponnesian war. Socrates met and talked with a variety of people such as politicians, statesmen, sophists, poets, architects, and ordinary citizens. He taught philosophy to the youth of Athens, devoted friends, and pupils like Crito. Plato was one of Socrates’ students, and he is considered to be most brilliant student of Socrates. In fact, Plato is the major source of knowledge about Socrates’ life.Socrates questioned and cross-examined Athenians about their moral, religious, and political beliefs. People found it difficult to understand him. His habits were strange, and his arguments were hard to understand. Socrates created a revolution in Greek philosophy. Plato portrayed this revolution in Defence of Socrates, Euthyphro, and Crito. Socratic Method is characterized by asking questions. When Socrates talks, he asks the que stions all the time. He teaches and refutes with questions. He talks to people with questions.The central element that upset the Athenians was the destructive cross-examination of the principles and beliefs that Athenians lived by, which consequently led to Socrates’ death because his contemporaries did not want to admit their own ignorance. Socrates was searching for the meaning of things; he wanted proof of what was defined which would give logical reason for itself. The fact that really hurt Athenians was the attack of the most fundamental principles of Athenian life. Socrates did not recruit people to follow him; rather he went out and asked them their views.His lectures were not characterized by forcing his ideas onto other people. The individuals brought their point of views on particular subject in dialogues set up by Socrates. Socrates’ way of testing or challenging a belief is by seeing what believer is committed to. A man, who makes a statement, especially in debate with Socrates, must be careful what he claims to know. One of the examples is a dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates. They both have pending lawsuits. Socrates is accused of impiety, and Euthyphro is going to prosecute his own father.Euthyphro’s father is charged with killing a day-laborer. According to Euthyphro his actions to prosecute his father is a model for piety. It doesn’t matter if the guilty one is a relative or a stranger, murder is murder. Euthyphro justified his actions by saying that he knows what holy or unholy is. Socrates wants to know what is holy or unholy since he was accused of impiety, and it seems that Euthyphro has exact knowledge of religion. The discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro illustrate an alternative approach to answer.Euthyphro’s answer to what is holy is in a form that lists individual actions. Socrates presents the questions that are mutually exclusive. For example,†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦is the holy loved by the gods be cause it is holy? Or is it holy because it is loved? † He asks plenty of questions like that. Euthyphro (the respondent) has to make a choice between the alternatives presented. Socrates accepts what is a false answer to his question. The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro demonstrated the untruth. The definition of holy was not discovered. This cross examination made Euthyphro very uncomfortable.As Socrates demonstrated, Euthyphro did not have exact knowledge of religion and what holy or unholy is. If Euthyphro, who is professionally devoted to religion, cannot produce an adequate answer or some valid criterion of holy, it is hardly to be expected that Athenian citizens will provide intelligent answers to such questions. Socrates was charged with irreligion, impiety, and corruption of youth. The Defence of Socrates is divided into three speeches. The opening is the criticism of the peroration in the court, and Socrates is carried away by the speeches of his accusers. His defense is based on the word â€Å"truth. At the beginning of the speech he makes it clear that he is interested only in truth: â€Å"†¦ my accusers have said little or nothing true; whereas from me you shall hear the whole truth†¦Ã¢â‚¬  The speeches in court generally have no relation to truth. The speakers aim to persuade others in believing what the speaker is saying. Socrates is compelled to make speech in court to defend himself. Socrates replaces the speech that is common in Athenian courts and exercises his own kind of cross-examination, whenever law permits him to do so. He proceeds according to his method of examining by questions and answers.Also, he wishes to converse with judges for more than one day and perhaps convince them that his accusers are wrong. Socrates acquired a bad reputation because he has some special wisdom as his accusers are saying. This is based on the account of Chaerephon, Socrates’ friend. Chaerephon asked the Delphic oracle who is the wisest. The oracle’s answer was that Socrates is the wisest. When Socrates heard the story, he was perplexed how this possibly could be the truth. Socrates went and questioned poets, craftsman, and politicians. He made enemies for himself during his quest for wisdom. Socrates realized and †¦formed opinion that, although the man thought to be wise by many other people, and especially himself, yet in reality he was not. † Through this process Socrates came to conclusion that only god is truly wise, and Socrates’ wisdom is worth nothing. With this confession Socrates sets up tension against the absurd charge of impiety. For Socrates, piety refers to his mission based on the conviction that he and others are ignorant. Socrates exposed through examination the ignorance of others. They claimed they knew something, when in fact they did not know anything. Socrates made people think and find the truth.Once they were exposed to Socrates questioning, they real ized they were ignorant and no truth was found. Because Athenians had a reputation to protect, they brought absurd charges against him. Next, the whole populations of Athens, the judges, the members of the Assembly are claiming to be educators, except Socrates. This absurd exaggeration expresses the sophistic relativism and is ironic, since Socrates is accused of being a sophist. We must make a clear distinction between the two. First, sophists charged fees for their services, next sophists in Athens were not citizens and they traveled throughout the Greek world.Finally, the sophist would use or find the argument that worked the best and did not care whether they uncovered the truth. Socrates did not charge fees, was an Athenian citizen, and believed in uncovering the truth. Additionally, there is another absurdity concealed in Socrates’ indictment. Socrates asks Meletos if he is corrupting youth intentionally or unintentionally. Meletos replies without hesitation-intentional ly. Socrates said that his wrongdoing is impossible. If Socrates is so stupid that he does not realize that he harms other, then he must do it unintentionally.Also, Socrates makes a clever remark towards Meletus: â€Å"Are you so much smarter at your age than mine as to realize that the bad have a harmful impact upon their closest companions at any given time, whereas the good have a beneficial effect? † Socrates explains that if he is corrupting youth he must do it unintentionally, and according to the law he should not be brought to court based on such a mistake. To add, he explains other reasons why alleged corruption of youth might be happening. Since all others are teachers of the youth, they should teach the youth justice and what is right.Evidently, they failed to do so, since Socrates has so many loyal followers. Finally, there is Socrates’ defense against the charge that he does not honor gods. According to Socrates, this charge is too vague. He asked his accu ser to make the point more precisely and explain it. Socrates begins to ask Meletos a series of questions. One of the Meletus’ charges is that Socrates does not acknowledge gods and claims that the sun and the moon are made of rocks. Socrates exclaims that this is mistaken identity. It is Anaxagoras of Clazomenae who made such a claim in his books which you can get anywhere for a cheap price.Socrates makes another clever remark that he does not believe that members of jury are illiterate and therefore they should know that Meletus’ charge is absurd. Furthermore, Socrates questioned Meletus and came to conclusion that according to Meletus, Socrates believes in some sort of spiritual being. Socrates ends with the question: â€Å" How could you possibly persuade anyone with even slightest intelligence that someone who accepts spiritual beings does not also accepts divine ones, and again that the same person also accepts neither spirits nor gods nor heroes? Socrates refut ed the charge of impiety by showing through questioning, that he could not be a despiser of gods since he believes in spiritual beings and descendants of gods. Socrates exposed Meletos self-contradiction, ignorance, and ignorance of the judges and jury, since they allowed charges to be brought to the court. In addition, Socrates takes unmistakable delight in the process of uncovering one’s ignorance. Following the custom, Socrates must propose the proper penalty for himself. Socrates considers a variety of punishments. He examined his own life.He believed that he fulfilled the duty towards the whole community by examining others and himself and did not wrong anybody. The exile would not be appropriate punishment. Socrates proposes that his penalty should be free meals, since he is doing a good thing in Athens. Socrates stands his ground as is portrayed in the third part of his speech. He accepts his death penalty, but also he warns his executioners that putting people to deat h will not prevent anyone from living unjustly and in ignorance. Socrates is convinced that his philosophical life of examining his own and other Athenians beliefs and actions is his duty.He does not fear death. He does not know if death is good or bad. Socrates warns Athenians not to value wealth, power, and prestige more than moral excellence. The moral excellence is the best possible state of one’s soul. Socrates commitment to reasoned argument is evident in Crito. There, in conversation with Crito, Socrates justifies his decision to remain in prison. Crito listed the reasons why Socrates should escape. First, Crito does not want to lose a friend, next what will other think that Crito doesn’t want to make sacrifice for his friend.Socrates begins with the reply that he must follow the logic: â€Å"I cannot reject the very principle that I previously adopted, just because this fate has overtaken me; rather they appeared to me much the same as ever, and I respect and honor the same ones that I did before. † This principle is within him and appears to be the best, regardless of situation. Additionally, Socrates examined his own morality. For Socrates, the greatest good is to be prudent and evil is to be imprudent. Prudence is the ability to act by use of reason and allows to distinguish when acts are reckless, cowardly or courageous.Socrates, also examined other of his principles such as not to do injustice, not to do bad things to other human beings, obey the laws of Athens, which he voluntary accepted. Yet again through the questioning of his own principles and in dialogue with Crito, Socrates comes to conclusion, that one shouldn’t care what other people think, but think what is just or unjust. If Socrates would escape, he would violate the sacred laws of Athens. The escape would be unjust. Socrates reasoned that if he would escape, the life time of his work would be destroyed.He dedicated his life to justice, to the state, and th e law. Socrates must confirm his teachings trough his actions. On the whole, Socrates during his lifetime pursued the truth. For Socrates, the truth was the only moral anchor in uncertain world. His method was direct. He asked questions in dialogues with anyone who would engage in conversation. This dialectic process was a purifying process. Similar to water filter, removing all the scum and sediment until results were pure. Socrates revealed through this process what is untruth.For Socrates, the inner truth is covered by the layers of untruth, and he tried to peel them away. This method is also known as negative method-eliminate what leads to contradiction. Socrates forced his contemporaries to re-evaluate, reflect and reconsider their beliefs. He did this in the ways that left people with uncertainty, in the state of unease, and realization of their own ignorance (but not admitting to it) as Plato portrayed in Euthyphro, Crito and Defence of Socrates. Furthermore, the Oracle of De lphi response to Chaerephon, who is the wisest man, provided Socrates with insights to education.The most powerful motivation to learning is acknowledgment of own ignorance. Next, Socratic Method seeks to find universal definition. Socrates believed that all things have something essential within them which can be uncovered by reason. The essential properties can be summarized in definition. For example, he seeks to find the definition what is holy or unholy in Euthyphro. The results of Socrates enquires in search for truth, knowledge, and wisdom through cross-examination, led to his death, because his contemporaries did not to want admit their own ignorance.

Final Paper Outline Essay

Dr. White ordered an unusual dose of a medication for a patient. May Patterson, RN, sees the order and believes it to be the wrong dose. She is afraid to call Dr. White because he can be abrasive at times. Nurse Patterson asks the charge nurse who is not as familiar with the patient to call the doctor. The charge nurse calls Dr. White. He insists that he knows what is best for the patient and insists that the medication will be given as written. The charge nurse calls you, the administrator on call for the weekend, to resolve the issue. 1. What principles of effective teamwork have broken down? 2. How will you work to resolve the issue? 3. List and describe five potential strategies for conflict resolution within this team. a. What types of information will you need to collect to have an intelligent conversation with this physician? b. Who should be involved in this situation, and the discussion with Dr. White, and why? 4. Which conflict resolution strategy is likely to be most successful? The principles of effective teamwork have been broken down when there was a fear of communication. Being that this case was due to someone’s health, Nurse Patterson should have put her fear of communicating with an abusive man aside and focused more on the patient’s health. It was however good that she at least brought someone else into the situation instead of just putting it all aside and submitting the prescription knowing the possible dangers. I as an on call administrator would resolve the issue by looking into the patient’s medical history and find out what the symptoms are and if that prescription is ri ght in order to treat their diagnosis. I would then call Dr. White to confirm why this certain medication was needed. Bargaining is one of the five potential strategies for conflict resolution. If you can get a team to bargain together you are getting them to come together once then next time a situation arises, the favor can be returned. Problem solving is getting the team to work through a situation and come to an agreement. Voting can be a bit difficult because one may not always agree with the other and a solution may not be reached. Researching can take up too much time and may delay a problem being solved longer than need be. Having a third party involved is always a plus because they can hear both sides of a dilemma and give their side as well and get a solution. The information needed to be collected in order to have an intelligent conversation with Dr. White would be to gather as much information about the patient, the patients history as well as the past history of the Doctor and how he communicates with others that way I would be able to know how to approach the situation and how to come to a conclusion without there being any conflict. The only ones needing to be involved is Dr. White, Nurse Patterson and the charge nurse. In this situation I don’t feel it would need to go any further than the administrator unless I felt there was potential harm or ill intent on the staff’s part. The conflict resolution strategy I feel would work the best is problem solving. With this strategy you are able to look at both the pros and the cons of this situation and it would make it easier to make a decision as to what is the best thing that needs to be done in order to treat the patient. Discussion 2 Human resources are an integral part of health care operations to recruit and retain high quality, and often highly specialized employees. 1. Describe why human resources management is comprised of strategic and administrative actions, providing examples of each. 2. Outline specific activities that encompass the strategic and administrative responsibilities of the human resources department. 3. If you were employed as an administrator in a small physician group without a human resources department, how would you carry out the strategic and administrative responsibilities required? Strategic actions has a main role in participating in business strategies rather than supporting administration. Research is done on its own in order to come up with a solution in order to have effective advice. It maps out specific strategies for achieving results for the organization. On the administrative side they are more focused on providing advice, guidance, strategies and services to management and staff. As well as what is best for the health company when it comes to hiring and recruiting the right kind people to do the job to the best of their ability. The roles of strategic planning is the process of planning, having a vision, its mission, values, suppliers and customers, acknowledging bumps and roadblocks, figuring out the goals and objectives, spreading the word, keeping track, assessing and following up on the process. Administrative responsibilities include the hiring process and orientation, approval for health care vacancies, advertising the position, preparing for the interviews and making selections. As an administrator I would designate certain people to carry out the job of what is required of both strategic and administrative responsibilities in order to keep the business meeting its required standards of staffing.