Discussion Board Post Response Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 15

Discussion Board Post Response - Essay Example It is also important to note that volunteering and putting yourself out there can help in the development and advancement of skills and knowledge that is imperative in leadership. For instance, health professionals deal with patients with different understanding capabilities and hence advanced communication skills are needed in order to identify and make sure these patients understand you. Allison Polinski, your strategies to incorporate your strengths in leadership are also spot-on. Training or providing learning opportunities for staff can help align their practices with our strengths. For instance, one of your strengths is learner. In other words, you are always open to new ideas and therefore, providing learning opportunities for the staff will give you an chance to also absorb new ideas. Creating a performance improvement team would also be important for you as a leader in an effort to improve safety and quality of services. An effective team can help you align your strengths with the needs of the organization. In this regard, the team can focus on your strengths and formulate strategies that ensure that the strengths will be effectively utilized. In so doing, employees will follow through and also utilize their best qualities in an effort to achieve organizational objectives (Buckingham,

The interpretation that Lenin was a dictator Essay Example for Free

The interpretation that Lenin was a dictator Essay Historians such as Pipes and Volkogonov have made the interpretation that Lenin was a dictator. As he adopted policies such as War Communism and the establishment of the Cheka. However their historical accounts can be challenged, due to their personal opinions. Other historians, such as Hill, believe that Lenin was not a dictator, as his policies were imposed on him by the Russian circumstances. Thus Lenin was not a dictator, as he was merely responding to the harsh Russian circumstances and was able to adopt flexible policies such as NEP. Lenin has been seen as a dictator through his centralisation of the state by 1924. This is because a centralised one-party dictatorship governed Soviet Russia. The Politburo became the Bolshevik organisation, which dominated government institutions and the main decision-making. Also Lenins decision to form an entirely new body of government, the Sovnakom, while the Soviet existed and should have been made as the main body of government, showed that Lenin had no intention of sharing power with other socialist groups in the Soviet. The Sovnakom ruled by decree without going to the Soviet for approval. Thus the centralisation of the state in Russia can be seen as dictatorial as it limited the political influence of other political groups, while it strengthened the authority of the Bolshevik, through the establishment of Sovnakom, which Lenin chaired. Pipes is one of the Historians who believe that the centralisation of power had allowed Lenin to create a one-party dictatorship1, as Lenins party was a precursor of a new type of political organisation that would be emulated before long by mass-based dictators2. Thus this historian is suggesting that Lenin creation of the Sovnakom, allowed his party to rule Russia through dictatorial means. This opinion is to an extent true, as the creation of the Sovnakom showed that the main decision making was taken by the Bolshevik centre with little account taken of other political viewpoints. However, Pipes historical account can not be held reliable, mainly for his personal views on Lenin and Communism, and also on the fact that there were circumstances outside Lenins control that forced him to use the Sovnakom rather than working effectively with the Central Executive Committee, such as the Civil War. The Politburo is also seen as a dictatorial institution that allowed Lenin to extend his dictatorship. The Politburo was the leading decision-making body of the Communist Party; it increasingly took power from the Sovnakom as the key decisions were made in the Politburo. Furthermore the Politburo consisted of members chosen by the Central Committee. Volkogonov explains that there was never a debate about it power3; this he believes was achieved as State power has been handed over to the so-called Party organ which was in fact the main instrument of the Bolshevik dictatorship4. This historian is suggesting that through the Politburo the Bolsheviks were able to rule Russia in a form of dictatorship, this is because they had the means of control and could pass decrees without considering other political viewpoints. The view that Lenin was a dictator because of the way he controlled political power could be challenged some historians belief that the creation of both the Sovnakom and the Politburo was a necessary measure, imposed on Lenin due to the circumstances created by the Civil War. It seems unlikely that Lenin would have moved so quickly towards a highly centralised state had it not been for the Civil War, which created the economic chaos in which the country found it self in 1918. The nature of the Civil War meant that there was little time to carry out consultation with the Soviet and other bodies. Emergency decisions needed to be taken quickly, thus decision making become more centralised. This view is supported by the fact that, in Nizhniy-Novgorod, the local Mafia of black marketers who defied Moscow controlled everything. So it is understandable the regime should have used the party structure to gain more centralised control of government bodies and bring some sort of order to the chaos. Therefore the actions of Lenin were pragmatic responses to the problems the Civil War forced on him, and they were not dictatorial, as Lenin had no choice. Overall, the centralisation of power does not suggest that Lenin was a dictator, this is because it was a pragmatic response to the chaos created by the Civil War, and also Lenin had lost control over the Politburo due to his ill health, towards the end of his time in power the Politburo is regarded to have become increasingly dictatorial. Thus the actions taken by the Politburo were not Lenins responsibility, they were the responsibility of Bolshevik party itself. Therefore Lenin cannot be seen as a dictator. Historians have interpreted Lenin as a dictator due his use of Red Terror. It was introduced after the attempt on Lenins life on 30 August 1918. The Red Terror is seen as a dictatorial action as it was the use of force to establish more political control over the Russian society. Thus Red Terror was used against any political opposition, which seems dictatorial. Pipes who views the Red Terror, as evidence that Lenin was a dictator, believes that Red Terror was not a reluctant response to the actions of others but a prophylactic measure designed to nip in the bud any though of resistance to the dictatorship5, thus this historian supports the idea that the Red Terror was used to form a dictatorship, as it restricted political freedom in Russia. This is because the Red Terror was aimed at former officials, landlords and priests who were executed. Any opposition to the Bolshevik Party authorities was dealt with by violence. Peasants who resisted the requisitioning of their crops or who hoarded grain were often shot at. Industrial unrest was similarly crushed. Therefore the Bolshevik regime was aware of the fact that there may be some opposition to the regime from, hence the regime chose to use the Red Terror in order to deal with any possible opposition. Thus some historians see this as a dictatorial action. Volkogonov also views the Red Terror as a cling to power at any cost6. He believes that Lenin wanted to stay in power at the cost of the Russian lives that may oppose him, thus Lenin chose to end this opposition either with physical terror, shooting, or through the use of concentration camps. Another aspect of the terror, which leads many historians of accusing Lenin as a dictator is the formation of the CHEKA7. This became the state institution8 to deal with any form of opposition to the regime. Historians believe that Lenin can be seen as dictatorial as he chose to deal with the opposition by terrorist means, and that he felt no qualms in resorting to merciless terror.9 Pipes believes that Lenin is a dictator as he planned to use terror before there had been any organised opposition against him. He explains that the CHEKA, or secret police, the main agency of the Red Terror was established in December 1917, before there was any organised resistance to the new regime.10, thus this shows that the CHEKA was only used to maintain the power of the Bolshevik regime and to protect Lenins authority. This view is supported by Volkogonov who believes that in order for Lenin to protect his authority he needed only one device, merciless dictatorship11. This historian is clearly stating that Lenins use of terror was a merciless dictatorship aimed at protecting his regime from any opponents. For example in August 1918 Lenin ordered ruthless measures against rich peasants who were resisting the regime and in particular its requisitioning of food. Therefore the CHEKA can be seen by historians such as Pipes and Volkogonov as a clear evidence of the dictatorship of Lenin. This is because the CHEKA and the Red Terror helped Lenin to establish more control over opposition in Russia. However, the account of these two historians can be challenged, as Pipes is an anti-Marxist and despises Lenin, while Volkogonov is an ex-general in the Russian army and does not approve of Soviet policies, therefore both historians hold biased views and. In addition to their historical opinions there are histor ical facts suggesting their argument is wrong. The interpretation that Lenin used terror simply as a means of enforcing his policies and establishing control has been questioned by other historians who see the policy of the Red Terror as a temporary measure forced on Lenin due to the circumstances; they also believe the terror was not used entirely by Lenin, Red Terror was rather a response to terror he faced. Lavers opinion on the Red Terror is that Terror met Terror12. Here he is referring to the Civil War, in which the Whites were using terror as well. During the Civil War, Baron Wrangel, a White leader in the Crimea ordered the execution of 300 prisoners of war, while the Green leader Antonov allowed his army of peasants to bury alive captured communist. Thus this historian is suggesting that Lenin only seemed to respond to the situations he was in, and had no intention of controlling political opposition. Lenin was not the only one using terror, there were other political organisations that did use terror. Hence he was in a situation in which he had to use terror as a response. Other historians also believe that Lenin was in a threat from the first moment he come into power, thus he needed to use terror in order to protect his authority. This view is supported by Liebman, who believes that Lenins motive- to defend the soviet power against the attacks of counter revolutionaries13, led him to use terror as he was facing opposition from 1917. This is proven by the fact that the opposition to Lenin came both from within Russia and from outside Russia. On 10 November 1917 the Morning Post in London called for direct military action against the Bolsheviks, also as the Bolsheviks seized power in October 1917 Kerensky and General Krasnov attempted to rally an army onto Petrograd in November 1917. This therefore shows that Lenin faced opposition and a terror threat from the first moment he came to power, thus he merely responded to this terror. Overall, Lenin used the Red Terror as a response to the terror that already existed in Russia when he had come to power. Lenin established the Red Terror after he had faced threats from both within Russia and from foreign intervention, thus Lenin cannot be seen as a dictator. This is because Lenin did not establish terror for personal interest and to control all political opposition, he established the terror in order to deal with terrorist opposition in the same way any regime would. The use of the CHEKA is also viewed by Service as a temporary measure, he believes that Lenin believed that the need for such an organisation would be only temporaryLenin did not at this stage call for a campaign of extensive mass terror14. This view is right, as Lenin saw the CHEKA as a temporary measure to protect the Bolshevik regime during its infancy to ensure its survival. Furthermore, the CHEKA was temporary, as during the Civil War the role of the CHEKA had declined. Overall, both the Red Terror and the CHEKA were a temporary response to the circumstances and a necessary body to contain the counter-revolution threat facing the Bolsheviks. Furthermore any regime that is newly established into a nation needs to protect itself from terrorist opposition. Thus Lenin cannot be seen as a dictator because he established a temporary measure as a response to the Russian circumstances. One of the reasons why Lenin is accused of being a dictator is the policy of War Communism. War Communism was a decree introduced by Lenin, it established strong centralised control over areas of production and distribution in the areas under Bolshevik control. War Communism can be seen as dictatorial policy as it reduced workers involvement in factories: Factory Committees lost the ability to manage their work places. Instead party officials took over this role which led to Bolshevik control over the economy. It also included the requisition of grain from peasants in rural areas by force; this caused unrest to increase as a result Lenin was forced to back his measures with the terror of the CHEKA. The view that War Communism is dictatorial is expressed by Volkogonov who believes that War Communism was a harsh regulation, as there was an acute food shortage in 1920 and a famine in 1921, in which 10 million Russians died. Volkogonov also believes that the dominance of the state over society which Lenin approvedensured the adoption of War Communism15. Volkogonov expresses a view in which Lenin appears to have approved of complete control over all aspect of society, and it was his attitude towards the government of Russia that led the way for War Communism. Thus Volkogonov is stating that Lenin is a dictator because of the policies that he introduced to Russia. However, knowing that Volkogonov was an ex-general in the Russian army, and had to leave due to his political views of the communist regime, his views cannot be seen as reasonable due to his biased and anti-Leninist feelings. The interpretation that War Communism was dictatorial is also questionable because, to an extent, the control of War Communism was needed, as most factory committees were not professional and experienced enough to control production for the Civil War, nor did they have the ability to organise the supplies for the cities and Red Army. It can therefore also be argued that Lenin was not a dictator, for example Hill argues, that Lenins choices to introduce War Communism were caused by temporary desperate necessities16. This suggests that Lenins actions were not of a dictatorial intention and that Lenins adaptation of War Communism was a mere response to the harsh economic problems. Although Hill is a biased historian, as he was a Marxist and sympathetic to Lenin, there were harsh conditions, due to the treaty of Brest Litovsk and the Civil War so his interpretation is still credible. The view that War Communism was not dictatorial is also supported by Laver, who believes that War Communism was the response of a regime desperate to feed the towns17. Production in Russia collapsed as the transport of goods and raw materials was totally disrupted by the Civil War; the allies blockaded communist territory, mainly Petrograd, and prevented it receiving foreign trade. This led to the population of Moscow and Petrograd being halved; of the 2.6 million workers in 1917 only 1.2 million was left working in 192018. Thus there was a need of an economy that was temporarily controlled by the state in order to ensure that cities were provided with food from the countryside and that production continued during the Civil War. Most importantly it can not be overlooked that War Communism was only a temporary measure. As soon as the Civil War come to an end War Communism was replaced by the New Economic Policy; which granted workers more than the freedom they had before the Civil War, and the peasants a freedom which they had never had. Laver, who holds a neutral view of both Lenin and communist revolution, believes that War Communism was a response to the Russian problems. He states that the policies were brought in piecemeal in response to the critical circumstances which prevailed in Russia19. Therefore this view also supports the argument that the economic problems led Lenin to adopt the policies of War Communism. Service also believes that The onset of Civil War had intervened and necessitated emergency measures that he now referred to as War Communism'20, therefore the view of Service, who is a neutral historian, supports the view of both Hill and Laver that Lenin was led to adopt the policies of War Communism due to the Civil War. Overall, Lenin cannot be easily accused of being a dictator as he adopted the policy of War Communism. This policy involved emergency measures that were imposed on Lenin as production fell and the Civil War started, Lenin had no intention of using the economy to establish personal power as he was willing to grant back political freedom as soon as the Civil War was over. The New Economic Policy (NEP) could be seen by some historians as one of the policies that proves Lenin was a dictator. They suggest that Lenin was desperate to keep power therefore he introduced NEP which only gave limited economic freedom and introduced political restraints to ensure that no power was lost. Historians such as Pipes question Lenins motives for introducing NEP, they dont believe that it was done to grant freedom but in order to maintain power. Pipes claims that NEP was a temporary measure only introduced as a period of relaxed tension so that a fresh offensive would be launched to exterminate the bourgeois for good21. Pipes view is to an extent is right, as the introduction of NEP was accompanied by strict measures of political control such as a final ban on all political parties other than the Bolsheviks. This suggests that Lenin was not willing to compromise his power, and he kept control of the commanding heights of the economy, thus had no real intention of granting the freedom that NEP seemed to promise. Pipes also suggest that for the Bolsheviks the grain monopoly was essential to the survival of communist dictatorship22, and that the Bolsheviks needed to regain the peasants loyalty in order to establish their dictatorship. However this interpretation is questionable as the Bolsheviks intended to regain the loyalty of the peasantry for a better agriculture that would help to develop a better industry. Pipes view is biased, as he holds an anti-Lenin felling. Pipes served as President Reagans national security advisor on soviet affairs during 1981-82; thus he holds a very negative opinion towards Communism and Lenin in particular. Pipes view is therefore questionable. The introducation of NEP was after War Communism, this shows that Lenin was willing to grant freedom. This, ascertains that Lenin was in fact far from being a dictator as he granted the peasantry a freedom that they never had before and he allowed the agriculture and trade to develop in private hands. Services view that NEP allowed greater legal freedom for the peasantry to trade grain than had previously been available to them23, is a more of a convincing view, as NEP allowed the peasants to trade the remainder of the grain anyway they wished. Thus the freedom that has been granted to the peasants proves that Lenin had no intention of acting as a dictator. NEP is therefore evidence that Lenin is not a dictator. It showed flexibility and the ability to compromise on ideology, which is not often related to dictators. Furthermore, NEP was able to restore confidence in Russians, workers and farmers returned to their work, which did help the economy. Overall, the NEP is another reason why Lenin cannot be seen as a dictator. This is because Lenin was able to see the errors that had been caused by War Communism and offer an alternative that did not agree with his ideology. NEP therefore proves that Lenin is far from being a dictator as it helped to improve the Russian economy and it replaced a temporary policy, which was not suitable for Russia after the Civil War. Overall, Lenin was not a dictator as he had no intention of being so, Lenin merely responded to the circumstance that faced him, although these responses may seem unsuitable Lenin did retreat from some of them, such as the move from War Communism to the New Economic Policy after the Civil War. Thus Lenin cannot be seen as a dictator. 1 R.Pipes- The Russian Revolution page 506 2 R.Pipes- The Three Whys of The Russian Revolution page 38 3 D.Volkogonov-Lenin Life and Legacy page 306 4 D.Volkogonov-Lenin Life and Legacy page 307 5 6 D.Volkogonov- Lenin Life and Legacy page 237 7 The Extra-ordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage was founded in December 1917. 8 D.Volkogonov- Lenine Life and Legacy page 236 9 R.Pipes- Three Whys Of The Russian Revolution page 41 10 R.Pipes- Three Whys Of The Russian Revolution page 41 11 D.Volkogonov- Lenin Life and Legacy page 472 12 J.Laver- Lenin Liberator or Oppressor page 62 13 M. Liebman- Leninism Under Lenin page 315 14 R.Service- Lenin a Biography page 322. 15 D.Volkogonov- Lenin Life and Legacy- page 334. 16 C.Hill- Lenin and the Russian Revolution- page 133. 17 J.Laver- Lenin Liberator or Oppressor- page70. 18 P.Oxley- Russia from Tsars to Commissars- page 128. 19 J.Laver- Lenin Liberator or Oppressor- page70. 20 R.Service- Lenin a Biography- page 430. 21 R.Pipes- The Russian Revolution- page 22 R.Pipes- The Russian Revolution- page 23 R.Service-Lenin a Biography- page

Elizabethan Masques: Mystery, Intrigue, and Suspense

Elizabethan Masques: Mystery, Intrigue, and Suspense Jocelyn M. Wigno Masques, or masquerades as they are more commonly known, have always been a popular choice of entertainment because of the atmosphere of mystery they create. Masquerades began in the fifteenth century and are still a favoured theme for parties today, but an abundance of great masques were performed throughout the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.* The defining characteristic of any respectable masquerade ball is the costumes, particularly the elaborate and fantastical masks found there. People attending masques always wear a mask that covers, or partially covers, the face. There are many varieties of masks. Some of the main styles of masks include the head mask, the stick-mounted mask, the full-face mask, and the half-face mask.* Stick-mounted masks are, as the name suggests, masks attached to long, thin sticks in order to be more easily equipped and removed. However, these masks are tiresome to continue holding for long periods of time, and so are usually only used at very short masques or as souvenirs. Head masks cover the entire face and head. They are usually of elaborate construction, huge, and covered in intricate designs and decorations. This makes it difficult to eat and drink while wearing one, so these masks were only for the most dedicated of partygoers. Full-face masquerade masks cover the entire face and are attached in the back by a string, unlike everyday riding masks, which were held to the face by a bead kept in the mouth.* This is so that the mask can easily be moved to the top of the head for effortless eating and drinking. These masks as well as half-face masks were the most popular choice because of their easy accessibility. Half-face masks only cover half of the face, usually leaving the mouth unhindered for easy access. Masquerade masks are vividly decorated in many ways and are often accompanied by a variety of extraordinary costumes.* The idea of the masquerade ball comes from mummers, mimes who led processions of torches during Christmas and wore costumes called Guisers that the tradition of wearing masks stems from.* Mummers got their start in ancient Egypt, but the first masquerade balls occurred in Italy, particularly in the city of Florence.* When masquerade balls first began to be performed, they were more like carnivals than a formal dance. The air was filled with the sound of drinking, gambling, and dancing, and everybody, including commoners, could buy a ticket in order to attend.* The upper classes could get away with expressing their political views without repercussions, and escape the ridicule that would come for even thinking of interacting with those of lower class. Many criminals would attend masquerade balls so as to use the anonymity to hide their crimes, so it was not unheard of that there would be many robberies and fights at masquerades. The tradition stuck around anyway, and as time passed, masquerade balls gained more structure. They would typically be held from late evening to early morning, with music and dancing until supper was served. Supper was usually cold food and wine. There were theatrical performances after supper* Queen Elizabeth I herself was present at many a masquerade thrown in her honor. She was rumored to be quite fond of them, despite the fact that the central theme of most masques at that time was along the lines of the protective nature of men as well as womens innate fragility and demure nature. One of the distinguishing characteristics of a masque is the theme. Besides themes of male authority, stories of spiritual guidance were often prevalent throughout the Elizabethan era, though the stories did not have so much to do with the church as they did the Greek and Roman cultures and their ideals.* Another distinguishing characteristic of masquerade balls is the fact that woman of the upper classes were allowed to perform in them. Upper class women were allowed, but if a lower class woman attempted to become a performer at a masque, it would have very lewd connotations. Queen Elizabeths own mother, Anne Boleyn, made her first appearance to the Tudor court at a Masquerade ball on March 1, 1522. Works cited Alchin, Linda. Elizabethan Masques. Np. Nd. http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-masques.htm. accessed March 6, 2017 Cassidy, Julie. Mask. Np. Nd. https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/402520. accessed March 7, 2017 Coper, Steve. The History of the Mummers and Philadelphia Mummery Np. Nd. http://fralinger.org/about/mummers-history/. accessed March 6, 2017 Elizabethan Masques. Np. Nd. http://www.elizabethanenglandlife.com/elizabethan-masques.html. accessed March 6, 2017 Monson, Toren. The History of Masquerade Masks. Np. Nd. https://venetianmaskscollections.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/the-history-of-masquerade-masks/.accessed March 10, 2017 Walton, Geri. Masquerade balls. Np. Nd. https://www.geriwalton.com/masquerade-balls. accessed March 6, 2017

Atomic Bomb :: essays research papers

Just before the beginning of World War II, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Urged by Hungarian-born physicists Leo Szilard, Eugene Wingner, and Edward Teller, Einstein told Roosevelt about Nazi German efforts to purify Uranium-235 which might be used to build an atomic bomb. Shortly after that the United States Government began work on the Manhattan Project. The Manhattan Project was the code name for the United States effort to develop the atomic bomb before the Germans did. "The first successful experiments in splitting a uranium atom had been carried out in the autumn of 1938 at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin"(Groueff 9) just after Einstein wrote his letter. So the race was on. Major General Wilhelm D. Styer called the Manhattan Project "the most important job in the war . . . an all-out effort to build an atomic bomb."(Groueff 5) It turned out to be the biggest development in warfare and science's biggest development t his century. The most complicated issue to be addressed by the scientists working on the Manhattan Project was "the production of ample amounts of 'enriched' uranium to sustain a chain reaction."(Outlaw 2) At the time, Uranium-235 was hard to extract. Of the Uranium ore mined, only about 1/500 th of it ended up as Uranium metal. Of the Uranium metal, "the fissionable isotope of Uranium (Uranium- 235) is relatively rare, occurring in Uranium at a ratio of 1 to 139."(Szasz 15) Separating the one part Uranium-235 from the 139 parts Uranium-238 proved to be a challenge. "No ordinary chemical extraction could separate the two isotopes. Only mechanical methods could effectively separate U-235 from U-238."(2) Scientists at Columbia University solved this difficult problem. A "massive enrichment laboratory/plant"(Outlaw 2) was built at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. H. C. Urey, his associates, and colleagues at Columbia University designed a system that " worked on the principle of gaseous diffusion."(2) After this process was completed, "Ernest O. Lawrence (inventor of the Cyclotron) at the University of California in Berkeley implemented a process involving magnetic separation of the two isotopes."(2) Finally, a gas centrifuge was used to further separate the Uranium-235 from the Uranium-238. The Uranium-238 is forced to the bottom because it had more mass than the Uranium-235. "In this manner uranium-235 was enriched from its normal 0.7% to weapons grade of more than 90%."(Grolier 5) This Uranium was then transported to "the Los Alamos, N.

Developing Yourself as an Effective Team Member (M2.34)

DEVELOPING YOURSELF AS AN EFFECTIVE TEAM MEMBER (M2. 34) Understanding teams and teamwork The difference between a team and a group is that a team is internally organized, with specific roles for different members of the team. They all have the same aim and goal. A group is just a collection of people with something in common but each individual has a different goal.The  Forming – Storming – Norming – Performing  model of  group development  was first proposed by  Bruce Tuckman  in 1965, who maintained that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the  team  to grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to deliver results. A group will become a team when the members understand the value of being together, personally and professionally, individually and organisationally. Their aims and objectives become one and it becomes well known that their goal will be best achieved through mutual support.Likewise, these factors also indicate when a group will become a team: * each team member’s viewpoint is respected and considered * regular meetings are held between team members and progress is observed * there is the feeling of trust and members are encouraged to apply their individual skills and talents to the task * sense of ownership is inculcated in all members * conflict is viewed as an opportunity for new ideas, creativity and improvement An example of when a group will become a team:A group of people walk into a lift. They all have different goals and agendas for being on the lift. The group becomes a team when the lift breaks down. Now they all have the same goal: Get out of the lift! The characteristics of a good team are: a clear, elevating goal understood by all, a results-driven structure, competent members who trust the judgement of others, unified commitment, a collaborative climate, and standards of excellence, principled leadership and members willin g to take risks.The advantages of working in a team are a combination of strengths you can get a good range of abilities, fields of expertise and personality types, a range of opinions: a group meeting is often very useful for ironing out flaws in a plan, testing it out, spotting pitfalls, divided responsibility: the team structure allows those who have strengths in a particular area to take more responsibility for that area, team spirit, opportunity to learn from others and to share ideas, motivation and a sense of belonging. Importance of communication within a teamTeam communication is significant because it has the  ability  to either build the team or tear it down. When communication is absent or ineffective in a team, the team unity will suffer. There will be lack of vision, motivation and purpose for existing. Where there is effective group communication, the group operates with one mind, spirit and common goal. Without team communication there is confusion, misunderstand ings and unhappy members. Group communication allows members to freely express themselves, and can provide accurate and comprehensive information.Communication in a team creates an environment of safety and security. Communication barriers: Language Language may act as a barrier to communication  even when communicating in the same language. The terminology used in a message may act as a barrier if it is not fully understood by the receiver. For example, a message that includes a lot of specialist jargon and abbreviations will not be understood by a receiver who is not familiar with the terminology used. DeafnessIn many instances hearing people will not take the time or make the effort to communicate with deaf people effectively. This is possible because they feel embarrassed or have no understanding of deafness. The deaf person feels frustrated and isolated from using vital services and support that have a right to access. Cultural Cultural barriers are a result of living in an e ver shrinking world. Different cultures, whether they are a societal culture of a race or simply the work culture of a company, can hinder developed communication if two different cultures clash.Deal with conflict in a team Some examples of behaviour that cause conflict in a team are: * putting the blame on someone else for your mistakes * force your own ideas on people * interrupt people when they are talking One method of reducing the first type of behaviour is admitting when you are in wrong or when you make a mistake and apologise to the rest of the team. Review own performance as a team member Belbin’s team roles are used to  identify people's behavioural strengths and weaknesses in the work place.This information can be used to: * Build productive working relationships * Select and develop high-performing teams * Raise self-awareness and personal effectiveness * Build mutual trust and understanding * Aid recruitment processes My team role is a co-ordinator and I feel I do fit my role when working in a team. I think I do perform well because I am confident and can express my ideas and viewpoints clearly. I do not hesitate to challenge or pick out the flaws out of other team member’s suggestions.What I do well is I am able to take control and lay down some discipline and order, I can listen to everyone’s opinions and ideas and I can include all team members. What I could do better is to be a little less demanding, less intimidating and control my temper as I get impatient with team members who are not willing to contribute. I could reduce my impatience by adopting a more calm; gentle but firm approach towards those team members who are not contributing as well I would want them to.

Why did the Whitechapel murders attract essays

Why did the Whitechapel murders attract essays White chapel an area between spitalfields and adlagate an area which was ignored many a time in the Victorian ages but why did it attract so much attention? Was it the intense brutality of the murders in which people felt happy and enjoyed reading about it? As jack the ripper would often use beastly methods of killing the 5 prostitutes and then take a part of their anatomy and keep it as a trophy such as in the case of Catherine Eddowes, her throat was cut and her bowels were out. her stomach was ripped up and there was a large cut from her breastbone to her stomach. Her intestines were cut out and her kidney and her womb were also cut out. There were cuts on both eyelids and the tip of her nose was cut off. This attracted so much attention because look at this the women was murdered it such a brutal way and this would have been used as an example for women to be careful and protect themselves against any strange men. This also shows that the people of Whitechapel knew what they were having to deal with. The Whitechapel murders attracted a lot of attention from the media and on two occasions letters that had been supposedly sent from the ripper were released generating more interest. Such an example was set to a Mr. Lusk and is shown below. This leeter was then later realsead to the media and in todays world prompt the question was it a hoax? Was it done to sell more newspapers? Or was it a real letter? Another point that the Whitechapel murders attracted so much attention was the whereabouts were the murders happened. The East End in 1888 was a dangerous place to be and most of the lower class lived there. There were mainly English, Poles and Jewish people living in the East End. The Jews fled from problems in Russia and had settled in the East End and were Jewish population had begun to rise slowly. Many Poles were expelled from Russia and came to live in the East End because ...