The Truth of Ivanhoe :: Ivanhoe Essays

The Truth of Ivanhoe Is Sir Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe a true representation of the Norman-Saxon feud? Yes, and through a comparison of statements and ideas from Ivanhoe, Arthur and the Anglo Saxon Wars, The Anglo Saxons, Scott, and England in Literature: America Reads it will be proven that the Norman-Saxon feud was accurately depicted by Scott in Ivanhoe. In Ivanhoe, Prince John attempts to take over England while his brother, King Richard, is away fighting the Crusades. In the book there are basically two sides to this struggle for control of England, the Normans and the Saxons. Prince John and his followers make up the Normans, while the Saxons are led by the title character Wilfred of Ivanhoe. The Saxons try to prevent Prince John from stealing the throne. The story occurs during the third crusade, but the feud between the Normans and the Saxons in 1066 well before this time. In 1066 at the Battle of Hastings, the Normans, led by William I, defeated the Saxons and took over control of England. Before this the Saxons had ruled England for 600 years. During the battle both sides fought strongly. It was a bloody war and many people died. The Saxons had fought and had won 21 wars to preserve their reign of England before their loss at Hastings. The Normans were from the English hated-France, so they didn’t have much of a chance of being liked by the Saxons. What little chance the Normans did have was destroyed by William. He established a new ruling class that was all Norman. He also took the land belonging to 5,000-6,000 Saxon nobles and gave it to 180 Normans who supported him. "The laws which William made were oppressive and severe and the taxes were heavy." Saxons commonly referred to William as a tyrant because of this. The Normans and Saxons were further separated through language. The Normans spoke French, the Saxons spoke English, and both groups commonly refused to speak the other’s language. There was one instance in Ivanhoe where two Normans were guests at a Saxon castle. The Saxons refused to speak French, and the Normans refused to speak English. In the end both groups spoke their native language only, even though they were fluent in both French and English. Another example of the Norman-Saxon feud from Ivanhoe occurred in the first several pages. Two Saxon servants came upon two Normans in the woods, and the Normans asked for directions to the nearest castle.

Leadership and Management Essay

The implementation of the care of the dying policy at the writer’s area of practice involved the process of change. This involved the use of both leadership and management theories which are essential to increased effectiveness as supported by Moiden (2002). The change was a political one due to the government initiatives to improve end of life care (Department of Health 2008). Antrobus (2003) states that political leaders aim to deliver improved health care outcomes for patients. The essay will critically analyze both leadership and management theories from the top of the organization to the bottom. These theories were used to implement this change to enhance quality care in this clinical area. The essay will also critically analyze and evaluate the nurses’ self management skills in fulfilling their role as clinical managers within interdisciplinary and the changing context of the healthcare. Similarly, the essay will discuss the implications upon quality assurance and resource allocation for service delivery within the health care sector. These will be related to current government strategies. The effects of government strategies in involving the user and carer or significant others in decision making process within current clinical and legal frameworks (Department of Health 2000b) will also be debated. Similar debate will also be on the nurses’ involvement in policy making (Antrobus 2003). Further discussion on government strategies will be discussed on the introduction of clinical governance and essence of care. Braine (2006) states that the purpose of implementing change is to improve effectiveness and quality. The whole process of change was based on the introduction of the care of the dying booklet which meant that all healthcare professional documented their notes in the same booklet. The change took place in a large hospital to implement a new policy which was politically driven by the government to improve quality of care. Like most hospital organizations, the hospital traditionally uses a bureaucratic management approach (Marquis and Huston 2006) reinforced with authoritarian leadership to facilitate efficiency and cost effective care. This is done through planning, coordination, control of services, putting appropriate structures and systems in place and monitoring progress towards performance activities (Finkelman 2006 and Faugier and Woolnough 2002). According to Marquis and Huston (2006) bureaucracy was introduced after Max Weber’s work to legalize and make rules and regulations for personnel to increase efficiency. The ward manager as a change agent had to design and plan the process of change. Designing change involved understanding the purpose of change and gathering data as supported by Glower (2002). Planning included identifying driving forces and ways to reduce restraining forces (Glower 2002). Unlike the top management who used bureaucratic management theory, the ward manager applied the human relations management theory (Marquis and Huston 2006) at ward level. This management theory is designed to motivate employees to achieve excellence. The human relations theory was introduced in attempt to correct what was believed to be the shortcoming of bureaucratic theory which failed to include the human aspects (Marquis and Huston 2006). Often referred to as motivational theory, Lezon (2002) agrees that this theory views the employee in a different way and helps to understand people better compared to the autocratic management theories of the past. It is based on theory Y of Douglas McGregor’s (1960) X and Y theories cited in (Lezon 2002). Theory Y assumes that people want to work, are responsible and self motivated, they want to succeed and they understand their position in the organization. Perhaps the appropriateness of this theory can be linked to the implementation of clinical governance which emphasizes that it is the responsibility of health care professionals to ensure effectiveness, high standards and quality (Braine 2006). This puts health care professionals in a responsible position and motivates them to provide high quality care. This explains why theory Y was used as opposed to theory X which according to Lezon (2002) assumes that people are lazy, unmotivated and require discipline. According to the human relations theory, there are some positive management actions that lead to employee motivation thus improving performance (Marquis and Huston 2000). Some of these actions used by the change agent were empowering and allowing employees to make independent decisions as they could handle, training and developing, increasing freedom, sharing big picture objectives, treating employees as if work is natural and other ways of motivating staff as supported by Marquis and Huston (2006 and Lezon 2002). The use of human relations theory in the implementation of this policy is well justified in contrast to other management theories. For example, theory X presumes that people must be coerced, controlled, directed and threatened with punishment (Lezon 2002). This theory adds that an average person has inherent dislike of work and prefers to avoid responsibility (Marquis and Huston 2006). In other words, theory X prefers autocratic style while theory Y prefers participative style. Managers using theory y seek to enhance the employee’s capacity to exercise high levels of imagination, ingenuity and creativity solving organizational problems. With the human relations theory, members feel special and involved rather than being controlled by threats and sanctions from the change agent (Dowding and Barr 2002). The team of health care professionals was aiming to achieve the same goal. This goal was to provide high quality care to patients approaching end of life. This involved a lot of organizational psychology and motivation to facilitate effective teamwork. Among the factors that facilitate effective teamwork, leadership is the most significant as stated by Clegg (2000). Toofany (2005) supports that leadership is on government’s modernization agenda for the National Health Service and is an influencing factor. Therefore, the change agent needed equally effective leadership style. To facilitate this, she applied the transformational leadership style. Markhan (1998) cited in Clegg (2000) defines transformational leadership style as a collaborative, consultative and consensus seeking. These are the same characteristics of the leadership style used by the change agent. Contrary to this leadership style is the transactional leadership style which is based on power of organizational position and authority to reward and punish performance (Moiden 2002). Based on Rosner (1990)’s research, Clegg (2000) states that gender affects leadership style and women prefer transformational style. Perhaps this explains why the change agent chose this style for this particular change. As in any form of change process, resistance, which falls under the unfreezing stage of Lewin’s (1951) cited in Murphy (2006) change theory is one of the common obstacles that needed to be dealt with (Curtis and White 2002). By inspiring a shared vision within the team (McGuire and Kennerly 2006) the change agent managed to increase driving forces and reduce resisting forces at the same time. Clegg (2000) values vision as a very important ingredient of transformational leadership, adding that it should be engaging and inspiring. Transformational leadership was first put forward by James Burns (1978) cited in Marquis and Huston (2006). According to him, a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation converts followers into leaders, a fact shared by Murphy (2005). If a leader can stimulate followers, he or she can engage followers into a problem solving attitude (McGuire and Kennerly 2006). In addition, people engage together in a way that allows leaders and followers to raise each other to higher levels of motivation and morality (Marquis and Huston 2006). This approach emphasizes on the leader’s ability to motivate, coach and empower the followers rather than control their behaviors (McGuire and Kennerly 2006). Moiden (2002) states that this style is widely used in all types of organizations in dealing with change. Frequently, it is contrasted with transactional leadership which is a traditional way in which followers’ commitment is gained on the basis of exchange of reward, pay and security in return of reliable work (Mullins 2002). However McGuire and Kennerly (2006) state that if transactional leadership is predominantly used, followers are likely to place limits to organizational commitment and behave in a way only aimed at contract requirements. Despite the differences in various leadership styles, most researchers conclude that there is no one leadership style that is right for all circumstances (Reynolds and Rogers 2003). Fidler (1967) cited in Moiden (2002) agrees that a single leadership style is rarely practiced. Therefore situational theories were introduced in order to deal with various situations. Perhaps this is why the leader used the situational approach to leadership in order to meet the demands of different situations, an idea also shared by Marquis and Huston (2000). Reynolds and Rogers (2003) suggest that the effectiveness of day to day activities depends on balancing between the task at hand and human relations to meet everyone’s needs. Different competence levels, motivation levels and commitment levels of staff on this clinical area justify why a situational approach was used in conjunction with transformational leadership style. Reynolds and Rogers (2003) support that situations like this require the leader to adapt their style. However, they warn that it is important to know when to lead from the front, when to empower and when to let go. This situational approach enabled the leader to work on followers’ strength and weaknesses. Moreover, Reynolds and Rogers (2003) warn that it is not always easy to find leadership styles that suite the needs of every situation and not everything falls into place from the beginning. Marquis and Huston (2000) criticize that situational theory concentrate too much on situation and focus less on interpersonal factors. Support was given to followers according their needs. Supportive behavior, as supported by Reynolds and Rogers (2003) helps people to feel comfortable in their situations. This was facilitated by the use of a two way communication system which involved listening, praising, asking for help and problem solving. Consequently, as performance improved, the leader’s supportive behavior shifted to delegation. Delegation was mostly directed to staff with high competences, commitments and motivation. Reynolds and Rogers (2003) support that the style of leadership alters as performance improves from directing to coaching to supporting to delegation. Basing on research studies, Reynolds and Rogers (2003) warns that using different approaches to different staff can practically difficult in terms of developing the whole group as well as maintaining fairness. This further exposes the limitations of situational approach. Nevertheless, it is equally important to assess followers’ capabilities and developmental needs so this explains the relevance of situational approach to this clinical area. The delegation was directed to some members of the team while others still wanted to be directed. In addition, this was because of the leader’s trust in people, working to their strength and sharing the vision as supported by Kane-Urrabazo (2006). Delegation is defined as transferring responsibility of an activity to another individual and still remain accountable (Sullivan and Decker 2005). Davidson et al (1999) caution that critical thinking and sound decision making must be applied before delegating because it increases rather than decrease nurses’ responsibility. They clarify that to ensure safe outcome, delegation must be the right task, right circumstances, right person, right instructions and right supervision. Pearce (2006) shares the same thoughts and adds that you must be clear about what you delegate, inform other members, monitor performance, give feedback and evaluate the experience while remembering that you remain accountable. However, Kane-Urrabazo (2006) and Taylor (2007) argue that delegation is another way of empowering the subordinates. However, like every team going through the process of change, problems arose and were solved as they came. Apart from dealing with problems like resistance and lack of resources, there was an even bigger problem of interdisciplinary working for both the change agent and the subordinates. Although this policy was predominantly nurse orientated, it needed authorization by a doctor in order for a patient to be commenced on care of the dying pathway. Whether inside or outside health care, interdisciplinary working was introduced with the same concerns of improving quality (Hewison 2004). Interdisciplinary working has been emphasized by a number of government initiatives (Martin 2006b), more recently the NHS Plan (Department of Health 2000a). To ensure the demand for interdisciplinary working is met, there has been a lot of emphasis on professional education and training. Effective interdisciplinary working is meant to facilitate delivery of quality services and is fundamental to success of clinical governance (Braine 2006). However, Hewison (2004) argues that there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of interdisciplinary working. There is also insufficient evidence to support that collaboration improves quality of care given to patients (Hewison 2004). Nevertheless, if interdisciplinary working is to be achieved it is important to appreciate the potential barriers to this type of working. In this particular organization there were some barriers that impeded interdisciplinary working. These barriers needed problem solving skills from both the change agent and the nurses. In many cases there were some disagreements between nurses and doctors as to when to commence the care of the dying pathway for a patient. Although the policy was self explanatory in terms of when to commence it, doctors were often reluctant to authorize it. Hewison (2004) states that occupational status, occupational knowledge, fear and distrust of other occupational groups are some of the barriers to effective interdisciplinary working. Additionally, different backgrounds, training, remuneration, culture and language can contribute to professional barriers, mistrust, misunderstanding and disagreements (Hewison 2004). To solve this problem the change agent and senior members of the medical team held regular meetings to discuss problems like this. This way of problem solving is well recommended by Hewison (2004) who explains that if interdisciplinary working is to be successful, structures and procedures should be in place to support it. This is a way in which organization reflects emphasis on teams rather than individual professional groups. Hewison (2004) adds that if this is reinforced with communication between managers and other professional groups, it is likely to be successful. Perhaps in future interdisciplinary learning may be necessary to overcome some of the barriers to interdisciplinary working. Despite lack of evidence for its effectiveness, interdisciplinary learning has been identified as a government priority (Hewison 2004). Therefore study programmes for health care professionals are important to facilitate this approach to learning.

Hitler And Stalin Roots Of Evil - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 932 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2019/06/24 Category People Essay Level High school Tags: Adolf Hitler Essay Did you like this example? There are a multitude of methods to which an individuals personality, behavior, and ethical leadership can influence an organization. First, this essay will analyze the distinct leadership characteristics of Hitler and Stalin via various lessons throughout chapter 2 of the textbook. Then, this essay will evaluate the personality traits, motives, and cognitive determinants that were representative of Hitler and Stalins leadership roles. Next, this essay will examine the significance of influence relating to the moral intensity, moral sensitivity, and organizational situation on these two leaders. This essay will then conclude with a comparable real-life scenario to this analysis. Lesson 2-1a defines several personality traits which contribute to the successfulness of a leader. While Stalin and Hitler lacked a moral compass, they were tremendously successful in their leadership roles. They shared personal traits and interpersonal behaviors such as self-confidence, enthusiasm, assertiveness, emotional intelligence, and extraversion (Dubrin, 2019, figure 2-1). Stalin and Hitler were mass murderers; contributing to more than 60 million innocent deaths; however, they could inspire millions of people to embrace their horrendous actions as necessities for a better future and world. Through these abhorrent actions, Stalin and Hitler effectively changed the world and will forever be disparagingly memorialized in history. Both Hitler and Stalin did possess high levels of self-awareness when it came to how the masses reacted to Hitler and Stalins actions. Both men used relationship management to convince the people that they had a calling to serve their people and they believed they were better suited, more than anyone else, to carry out leadership roles. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Hitler And Stalin Roots Of Evil" essay for you Create order As to Hitler and Stalins motives; the video discusses how both men were raised by abusive fathers, had deprived childhoods, and eventually grew to have women issues, suffer from paranoia, and disdain for their physical attributes. These are all attributes that would signify low self-esteem, introversion, and inadequacy; however, these two leaders used these particularities as fuel to advance themselves. Hitler and Stalin became leaders with high power motives (Dublin, 2019, lesson 2-2a). These men clearly possessed personalized power motives; however, they both believed they were following a more socialized power motive. Hitler and Stalin actually presumed that killing those people contributed to the good of their countries. Stalin changed his name because the name Stalin meant man of steel (Emile, 2016). Hitler and Stalin had an insatiable lust to dominate and show everyone how powerful they were. Both men had an achievement motivation drive to reshape their country and deliberately removed any opposing obstacles, whether it be a person, idea, or a physical structure. It is possible the influence from Hitler and Stalins heredity and surrounding environment may have influenced their abusive, brutal, and paranoid reign; however, there is no denying they were fully aware of how their actions and had no mindfulness or social awareness (Dublin, 2019, 2-1b). Hitler used his emotional intelligence to determine which aspects of his countrys culture he could distort. Germany was ravaged by WW1. People were poor and frustrated. Hitler used this combined with his hatred for Jewish people to mislead the Germans to believe all their financial and country issues stemmed from the inferior Jewish community. The people of his country were despite and needed something to unite them and sadly, this was as good a reason as any. Similarly, Stalin also united the Russian people after the revolution. Stalin rose to power and held a powerful, highly respected position, he decided to assassinate any possible enemiesand even friend who became too popular (Emile, 2016). People became scared of him and would not challenge his actions. Years ago, my manager was replaced by a Lebanese manager who had never worked in the United States. He worked for our company, which is an international company, for many years and was very good friends with the COO. The COO was of course, best friends with the CEO, which gave both men high status. Unfortunately, he was raised in a very strict home where the women stayed home, had children, went to church, and the men essentially ruled the house and provided (as they saw fit) for the family. He was not thrilled to meet our group which consisted of 4 women and one male. He instantly promoted the male over the rest of us even though he had only been with the company for 3 years and our manager was there for 33 years. She was extremely intelligent and help 2 doctorates. That did not matter to him at all. He proceeded to tell us how things were gonna go and what was expected of us and if we couldnt work late because of children or other obligations, we didnt need to be there. He was rut hless, insulting, and degrading. Two women quite within 6 months and everyone, including the male coworker, filed complaints with HR. That being said, he was extremely smart. He had a great knowledge of the business and when he wasnt being a jerk would explain to me how the different areas of the company were affected by others. For example, how our Texas supply chain group affected sales in Italy or Germany. He helped make our Finance dept. much more efficient and even helped automate several processes. I cant say I respected him or that I liked him even a little, but I was impressed by his knowledge and skill. In a way, I find he was like Stalin and Hitler, albeit, on a much less horrendous scale. He demanded respect, had drive, and great cognitive factors, but he had a personalized power motive, and a serious lack of insight. Successful leadership is difficult and takes many years and skills to acquire.