Excerpts from Natural History of Sonoran Desert Assignment

Excerpts from Natural History of Sonoran Desert - Assignment Example Sonoran Desert is different and unique from other North American deserts in many ways. It has an extremely hot weather as well as compared with any North American desert; Sonoran Desert has the greatest biodiversity. It enjoys rainfall twice a year which makes it an ideal region for animal and plant life. However, the rainfall received is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the living beings on the desert and it evaporates due to high temperatures (Roger Dunbier). The Sonoran Desert has the greatest number of habitats and species living in the region as compare to any other desert. As it is located on the western side of the North America within the horse latitudes; it has the rich biotic communities which include all of the world’s biomes. Typically, spring is the main flowering season in the Sonoran Desert. The season starts from mid February to mid June. Peak flowering season is observed from mid March to the late April. Peak flowering season is dependent on the temperature and rainfall (Steven Buchmann and Nabhan

Feminist Epistemology Essay Example for Free

Feminist Epistemology Essay Abstract In this paper I analyze the potential of Allison Jaggar’s suggestion that emotions in general, and outlaw emotions in particular, be incorporated into feminist epistemology. Jaggar advocates a standpoint theory of emotions, and suggests that the emotions of the oppressed in particular are helpful rather than inimical to acquiring knowledge. I argue that although there are some potential problems with Jaggar’s approach, these problems are common to standpoint theories and can be addressed by applying the solutions offered by other feminist theorists. One common criticism made by feminist epistemologists[i] is the critique of traditional epistemology’s notions of objectivity and neutrality. As Naomi Scheman puts it, in traditional epistemology â€Å"[t]hose who are taken to be in the best position to know are those who are believed to be objective, distanced, dispassionate, independent, and nonemotionally rational† (3-4). [ii] According to Allison Jaggar, the result of this conception of the knower in modern epistemology is a sharp distinction between reason and emotion where reason is privileged because emotions are viewed as involuntary responses that distort our rational observations of the world, which in turn distort the knowledge we can gain from these observations (1992). She further argues that this distinction contributes to the denial of women’s epistemic authority since women are associated with emotions and men with reason, and so men became the standard by which epistemic authority is judged. This is just one of many concerns feminist epistemologists share. However, there are many dissimilarities between feminists as to how to deal with the problems in traditional epistemology. [iii] One approach that I will focus on in this paper is feminist standpoint theory, particularly the standpoint theory offered by Jaggar in â€Å"Love and Knowledge: Emotions in Feminist Epistemology. † What Jaggar aims to accomplish in her paper is to â€Å"begin bridging the gap [between emotion and knowledge] through the suggestion that emotions may be helpful and even necessary rather than inimical to the construction of knowledge† (1992, 146). The bridge she wants to build includes a methodology for identifying biases of the dominant group that leads to false appraisals of the world. This methodology relies on the notion that perspective can be altered by the way one is situated in the world, particularly how one’s situatedness can affect one’s emotional perspective and response. I will explain the concept of emotional perspective and response in a moment, but I want to first note that the type of emotions she thinks are important to feminist epistemologists are outlaw emotions—which are emotional responses that do not follow or support the values and norms we have been taught to accept. Because outlaw emotions are usually a negative response to norms and values, they can help us identify which biases are causing errors in our methods of seeking knowledge. The point that Jaggar wants to make clear is that impartiality in our epistemic methods is impossible, therefore, we should give up on the notion of impartiality and work towards identifying biases that will better guide our epistemic endeavors. There is much debate between feminists over the potential of feminist standpoint epistemologies, yet, I think that Jaggar’s methodology warrants some consideration. [iv] However, because she offers just a sketch of how emotions might be incorporated into epistemology, there are some aspects of her theory that are problematic. The first problem is that standpoint theories seem to neglect the differing experiences of particular individuals within groups by trying to speak about the experiences of these groups in general. The second problem is that Jaggar needs to address how to distinguish which outlaw emotions could potentially further feminist interests from the other emotions, outlaw or otherwise. The general aim of this paper, then, is to initiate an investigation into whether Jaggar’s proposal will be a fruitful endeavor for feminist epistemologists. The more specific aim of this paper is to point out some of the potential problems that arise from her theory, as a feminist theory, and to offer some potential solutions for these problems, some of which are solutions that feminists have previously used to answer similar problems in other feminist theories. 1. Jaggar’s View Jaggar argues that theories that make the distinction between reason and emotion as it pertains to knowledge are mistaken in that they falsely assume emotions are involuntary responses that can be separated from reason. Jaggar contends that most emotions are socially constructed, intentional, and can influence our perceptions of the world. For example, when someone feels anger at a slight from a friend, this anger arises not as an involuntary response, but rather there is a judgment being made about the way friends ought to behave and the response of anger is the appropriate emotion that corresponds with one’s expectations being disappointed. We form beliefs about what constitutes a slight by a friend at the same time as we learn what our society values as appropriate friendship behavior and appropriate responses to different experiences—say affection as a response to respect from one’s friends and anger to disrespect. The idea that emotions are constructed suggests that socialization influences our appraisals of the world and the judgments we make are often emotional responses to observations that reflect the norms and values of our society. For example, when someone tells a joke the expected response is for a person to be amused. However, my being amused by a joke presupposes a number of social conditions. For instance, when we hear something like ‘a priest, a rabbi, and a duck walk into a bar’ we immediately feel an anticipatory amusement, since we recognize this as a joke formula. [v] If I do not recognize this formula then my lack of understanding could cause me to not share the same social experience as the other people who are hearing the same joke. Second, in order to find the joke amusing I must not only understand the language in which the joke is told, but also the content of the joke. I must share the same appraisal of the world in order to actually be amused by the punch line. Third, emotional responses are neither automatic nor passive in the sense that we have no control over them. I may be amused and laugh at a joke of this type. However, I may not laugh if I find the joke to be in bad taste even though not laughing when amusement is anticipated often creates moments of social tension and discomfort. The important thing to note here is that in both cases whether or not I am amused can be a deliberate conscious decision. From this example, we can see why Jaggar suggests that, â€Å"every emotion presupposes an evaluation of some aspect of the environment while, and conversely, every evaluation or appraisal of the situation implies that those who share the evaluation will share, ceteris paribus, a predictable emotional response to the situation† (1992, 153). Just as I would have to share a similar appraisal of the world in order to understand the punch line of a joke, I am also influenced by those preconceived notions to think the joke is funny. At the very least, I am conditioned to some extent to recognize a joke when I hear one and laugh when I think laughter is the expected response. Jaggar thinks it is important to recognize that emotions play a role in how we seek knowledge, given that if we maintain the distinction between emotion and reason in epistemology, then this distinction will influence whom we think are good epistemic agents: namely, dispassionate investigators who can keep their emotions from interfering with their observations. Ironically, because the notion of a dispassionate investigator is considered the ideal, we are biased in our assessment of who is a good investigator and who is not. Note that Jaggar is not saying we are not being impartial enough in our assessment of investigators; rather she is saying our bias in favour of the dispassionate is inhibiting because emotion is an essential part of knowledge. Moreover, the distinction between emotion and reason is problematic, as Jaggar points out, because â€Å"reason has been associated with members of dominant political, social, and cultural groups and emotion with members of subordinate groups†, like â€Å"people of color†¦and women† (1992, 157). The result of the false distinction between emotion and reason is that it produces a myth about investigators that functions in a circular pattern where the myth reinforces the oppression of those who are perceived as emotional, while the oppression reinforces the myth that it is bad to be emotional. In order to give a full account of what it means to be a good investigator, then, we should acknowledge how emotions function to produce passionate investigators who are reliable observers. The first point Jaggar thinks a full account should include is that in many ways emotions are socially constructed in a way that reflects the norms and values of our society, and that this emotional construction influences our evaluations and observations of the world. The second aspect of the social construction of our emotional constitution she wants to point out is that our emotional construction is not complete in the sense that there are people who do not always respond to or evaluate particular situations in a manner that reflects social norms and values. Jaggar calls these unconventional emotional responses and evaluations â€Å"outlaw† emotions, and states that they are usually experienced by â€Å"subordinated individuals who pay a disproportionately high price for maintaining the status quo† (1992, 160). However, when the distinction between emotion and reason is maintained biases against emotional responses in general and unconventional emotional responses in particular, are disregarded. For example, a woman may feel anger or fear when a sexist joke is made, but when she tries to voice her opinion she is told either that she did not understand the joke or that she has no sense of humour. Thus, when the distinction is maintained it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to realize that the joke is not funny because it is based on a negative stereotype. That is to say, it is not acknowledge that the stereotype and the expected emotional response is dictated by the current norms and values. Furthermore, because a woman, who may already be identified as a bad observer, is pointing out that there may be a mistake in our way of thinking, her response is disregarded as emotional and unreliable, and the oppressive norms and values go unquestioned. 2. Jaggar’s Methodology and Potential Problems The benefit of ridding ourselves of epistemologies that do not acknowledge the role of emotions, both conventional and unconventional, is that we can begin to recognize which norms and values are causing harmful biases and negative stereotypes. Furthermore, Jaggar claims that feminist outlaw emotions—which are outlaw emotions that â€Å"incorporate feminist perceptions and values†Ã¢â‚¬â€are particularly useful in feminist epistemology because they â€Å"can help in developing alternatives to prevailing reality by motivating new investigations†¦Feminist emotions provide a political motivation for investigation and so help determine the selection of problems as well as the method by which they are investigated† (1992, 161). Although Jaggar meant to offer a rough sketch of some of the changes that need to be made to our epistemic theories and practices, I think there are  some potential problems that need to be addressed. For one, I think she needs to say more about how we should determine which emotions will lead to fruitful norms and values, and which emotions we should reject. To her credit, it seems that Jaggar recognizes this is a question that needs to be addressed given that she tries to give reasons for why â€Å"certain alternative perceptions of the world, perceptions informed by outlaw emotions, are to be preferred to perceptions informed by conventional norms† (1992, 161). She claims the reason women’s outlaw emotions should be given consideration is because women are not members of the group that conventional beliefs about emotions privilege. Given that women experience the consequences of not being privileged, they are not as likely to adhere to these norms without question. Hence, they are better able to articulate the negative aspects of their experiences because they do not fear that this questioning of norms will threaten their privileged status. The problem with this response is that it does not seem to fully answer the question, because some outlaw emotions will not provide reliable guides to identifying biases, and so the difficulty will be distinguishing which emotions are reliable from those that are not. In order to give a more robust argument for why we should give special consideration to the emotions of oppressed people she needs to first address the fact that the â€Å"oppressed† do not share one perspective. As pointed out by Marilyn Frye, one problem with making claims about the standpoint of women’s emotional perspectives is that such claims seem to presuppose there are universal types of emotions—outlaw or otherwise—that are consistent throughout the emotions experienced by women. Frye notes that this is a mistake often made by feminists given that it is common for epistemological theories to espouse that â€Å"all knowers are essentially alike, that is, are essentially like oneself: one thinks that one speaks not just as oneself, but as a human being† (35). What happens in feminist theorizing as a response to this attitude is feminists become convinced they need to speak as â€Å"Women† in order to be taken seriously. As Frye points out, feminists often face the difficult task of trying to articulate â€Å"the circumstances, experience and perception of those who are historically, materially, culturally constructed by or through the concept women. But the differences among women across cultures, locales and generations make it clear that although all female humans may live lives shaped by the concepts of Woman, they are not all shaped by the same concept of Woman† (36). [vi] The point I want to stress from this passage is that not all women will experience the same emotions in the same contexts because we are formed by different concepts of â€Å"Woman† even though women in general face oppression in one form or another. In response to the problem of women’s differing experiences, Frye suggests feminists approach epistemology with a different methodology. That is, a methodology that will allow women to give meaning to their own experiences even though they are not experiences that are shared by all women. Part of this project entails that feminists give up the notion of a universal women’s experience. Another part is that they listen to many different women’s experiences and look for patterns of similarity. Frye suggests this methodology will result in the following: The experiences of each woman and of the women collectively generate a new web of meaning. Our process has been one of discovering, recognizing, and creating patterns—patterns within which experience made a new kind of sense, or in instances, for the first time made any sense at all. Instead of bringing a phase of enquiry to closure by summing up what is known, as other ways of generalizing do, pattern recognition/constructions opens fields of meaning and generates new interpretive possibilities. Instead of drawing conclusions from observations, it generates observations. (39) I think this methodology will be helpful in pointing out the outlaw emotions that can offer guidance as to which of our norms and values are questionable, and opens a dialogue over potential ways to change them. The methodology Frye advocates can be further developed if we consider potential ways in which women can express their experiences such that patterns can be recognized. One approach that I find particularly convincing is offered by Morwenna Griffiths. Griffiths suggests that feminist epistemologists can employ autobiographical accounts of women’s experiences as a means of articulating the differences between women’s experiences. Like Frye, Griffiths also notes that there is no one experience common to all women. However, Griffiths further claims that, â€Å"[i]ndividuals are not entirely of one group or another. On the contrary, individuals are fragments of an uncertain number of groups† (62). The conclusion she draws from this point is that it is an oversimplification to limit the types of knowledge humans can acquire into categories like women’s knowledge. One person can experience oppression from the perspective of more than one position. To name a few, one may experience oppressions from the perspectives of a particular race, class, gender, or sexual orientation, and intersections of these. For example, the oppression experienced by a native woman is not the same as that experienced by a native man or that experienced by a white woman. Hence, Griffiths suggests that one’s positions in the world at different times can contribute to her understanding of the world, which in turn will influence the knowledge she can acquire about the world. Noting the different positions from which an individual can have experiences and acquire knowledge is important because it suggests that there can be similarities between the positions we occupy and the individual experiences we have. This potential to have similar experiences of the world further suggests that similarities in experience make it the case that we are not completely denied access to other people’s understanding of the world. The reason Griffiths thinks autobiographical accounts are a crucial feature of feminist epistemology is because the way in which individuals come to find similarities in experiences is through language. To further clarify her point, she argues that, language has a considerable power to determine what we see and do, but this power is not absolute. We also create new language, by working on the languages in which we live. Individual experience can be used in creation knowledge in combinations with the experiences of others. Groups can develop languages of their own if they share particular psychosocial, social and linguistic experiences. Thus women in society, for instance, who share particular positions within it can develop a way of talking about this. (66) In short, Griffiths suggests that language is key to feminist epistemology because it points out how women with different experiences can nonetheless come to some consensuses on the oppressions they experience and the knowledge developed from these experiences. 3. Conclusion I think that if we incorporate Griffiths’ and Frye’s approach on Jaggar’s theory what we will find is a more tenable response to questions about which outlaw emotions can be regarded as being particular to women: namely, patterns of outlaw emotions that feminists have recognized through the expression of different women’s autobiographical accounts. And once we can start pointing out the commonalities between the different perspectives that arise from the standpoint of different women, we can begin show that there is something about women’s reality that makes it the case that they are experiencing the world differently than men. I have not even scratched the surface with respect to giving a detailed explanation of exactly how Jaggar thinks a fully functional theory of outlaw emotions might look. However, I am assuming that once theorists start admitting that emotion is an integral part of epistemology the intricate details of how to identify fruitful outlaw emotions will be worked out. For instance, we might be able to start identifying patterns of emotions that could be considered outlaw emotions and which norms and values that they are a response to. And this recognition will further our abilities to start questioning the norms and values that guide our epistemic practices. I think this is the sort of thing Jaggar had in mind when she states that the benefit of bridging the gap between emotion and knowledge is that our emotions, when properly accessed, â€Å"may contribute to the development of knowledge, so the growth of knowledge may contribute to the development of appropriate emotions† (1992,163). The development of this project may be slow and arduous, but given the problems that exist in traditional epistemology I think Jaggar’s project seems worthy of consideration as a potential contributor to a solution. NOTES [i] For the purposes of this paper I will equate feminist epistemologists with feminists philosophers of science given that there are many overlapping interests between the two. [ii] For similar arguments, particularly with respect to how positivism had contributed to the notion of the ideal objective knower, see Jaggar (1992) and (1983), especially pp. 355-358; Code (1993). [iii] As noted by Louise Antony, â€Å"For discussions of epistemological frameworks available to feminists, see Sandra Harding, The Science Question in Feminism, (Ithaca, N. Y. : Cornell University Press, 1986), especially pp. 24-29; Mary Hawkesworth, â€Å"Feminist Epistemology: A Survey of the Field,† Women and Politics 7 (1987): 112-124; and Hilary Rose, â€Å"Hand, Brain, and Heart: A feminist Epistemology for the Natural Sciences,† Signs 9, 11 (1983): 73-90. † (Antony 2002, Note 3). [iv] For discussion of Feminist Standpoint Theory, see Bar On (1993); Harding (1993); Longino (1993). For a more general analysis of essentialism in feminist theorizing, see Spelman (1988). [v] Thanks to Elizabeth Brake for clarifying the distinction between the emotion of amusement and the behavior of laughter, as well as supplying me with an example of amusement anticipation. [vi] Jaggar does mention that she is speaking â€Å"very generally of people and their emotions, as though everyone experienced similar emotions and dealt with them in similar ways† (Jaggar 1992, 157). And she further notes that â€Å"it is an axiom of feminist theory†¦that all generalizations about ‘people’ are suspect† (Jaggar 1992, 157). So she does, at the very least, seem to recognize that she may fall prey to Frye’s criticism. However, she goes on to argue that making generalizations about the emotionality of women is part of how the epistemic authority of men is perpetuated, and she does not address the issue of how she should deal with the problem as it applies to standpoint theory. I find this particularly odd given that in another work she claims that part of the project of feminist ethics entails that feminists be sensitive to the fact that all women are not similarly situated in such a way that universal claims can be made about them even though there are commonalities between women’s situatedness at times. (Jaggar 1991). So, although I am uncertain as to why she does not deal with problems that might arise from this issue as it applies to standpoint theory, I gather that she would welcome rather than reject feminist theories that could aid her in avoiding this problem as it would apply to feminist epistemology. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alcoff, Linda, and Elizabeth Potter. 1993. Feminist epistemologies. New York: Routledge. Antony, Louise. 2002. Quine as a feminist: the radical import of naturalized epistemology. In A mind of one’s own 2nd edition, ed. Louise M. Antony and Charlotte E. Witt. Colorado: Westview Press. Bar On, Bat-Ami. 1993. Marginality and epistemic privilege. In Feminist epistemologies. See Alcoff and Potter 1993. Code, Lorraine. 1993. Taking subjectivity into account. In Feminist epistemologies. See Alcoff and Potter 1993. Frye, Marilyn. 1996. The possibility of feminist theory. In Women, knowledge and reality 2nd edition. ed. Ann Garry and Marilyn Pearsall. New York: Routledge. Griffiths, Morwenna. 1995. Feminisms and the self. New York: Routledge. Harding, Sandra. 1993. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: â€Å"what is strong objectivity†?. In Feminist epistemologies. See Alcoff and Potter 1993. Jaggar, Alison M. 1992. Love and knowledge: emotions in feminist epistemology. In Gender/body/knowledge. ed. Alison M. Jaggar and Susan R. Bordo. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. . 1991. Feminist ethics: projects, problems, prospects. In Feminist ethics. ed. Claudia Card. Kansas: University Press of Kansas. . 1983. Feminist politics and human nature. New Jersey: Rowman Allanheld Publishers. Longino, Helen E. 1993. Subjects, power and knowledge: description and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In Feminist epistemologies. See Alcoff and Potter 1993. Scheman, Naomi. 1993. Engenderings: constructions of knowledge, authority, and privilege. New York: Routledge. Spelman, Elizabeth V. 1988. Inessential women: problems of exclusion in feminist thought Boston: Beacon Press.

Renault Nissan The Paradoxical Alliance Marketing Essay

Renault Nissan The Paradoxical Alliance Marketing Essay Individual Essay Contrary to common belief recent research suggests that, most often it is not poor strategic that causes mergers and acquisitions or alliances to fail but poor implementation. Common mistake can be identify in, for instance: lack of trust and communication, insensitive management, power struggles, slow execution or a leadership void following the deal. In this assay we will explain the points that have made what on the beginning was announced as a marriage of desperation is now considering one of the most successful alliance. The most fundamental challenge of any alliance or merger is cultural: if only one does not believe that something can be learned from new partners, the venture is doomed to fail said Carlos Ghosn. Renault-Nissan gave attention of the cultural people aspect, in fact Ghosn (Nissan and Renault CEO) created a specialize team combine both nationality together, in addition they chose a common language (English) and a common vocabulary, for some misleading words, with the purpose to avoid misunderstanding. A drive change, for the company has been the transparent valour and the strong leadership of the CEO; in addition a common vision, based on the Nissan Revival Plan, with the main purpose to be profitable in only three years, that has given a common point to reach for both the companies and what it is more the perfect goals to achieve. In this way, Ghosn had reinforced the value inherent in the organizations view and expressive a clear and appealing vision, such as using expressive, strong form of communication, show strong self-confidence and self-assurance in the attainment of the vision. Moreover, they transferred high expectations to the group and confidence in their abilities, showed role-modelling behaviours that emphasized and reinforced the values inherent in the vision and in this way empowering people to achieve the vision. From my point of view since the first meeting they create an alliance based on partnership and trust, rather than power and domination. The two companies utilize common synergies in numerous areas, apart from sharing the platforms on which vehicles are built; they also exchange research and technological innovation (transmission engineering, fuel and cell research, and state-of-the-art engines). In order to facilitate coordination and improve performance, they create a cross-cultural teams and functional task team, in fact some employee were working on the same time in Renault-Nissan alliance even though they continue to stay in their original company. Another important aspect is that the Renault-Nissan alliances have joining together people of various national cultures and different corporate society into one company. Moreover, the leader had capitalized on the cultural differences between employees and he minimized firstly the stereotype and secondly the psychological distances between them. Furthermore the company since the beginning invested a lot of money for training 1500 Renault employee about the Japanese culture and 400 Nissan staffs about the French culture. This one the first good step for create a cross-cultural alliance, studying the opposite company culture, habit and background, both Japanese and French could understand better the opposite point of view, in order to avoid misunderstanding and play together for a common plan. When Carlos Ghosh arrived to Nissan, he plan to cut 21,000 jobs (from 147,000 to 148,000) by March 2003, so basically in three years, in addition he closed five factories and interrupted the historical supplier rapport with the Keiretzu. He did all of these actions in order to give a strong signal to the company and reduce to the minimum redundancy and cost. Another important aspect that Carlos completely change was the management process, before he came to Nissan a younger employee could not managing and old colleague because of the age and the seniority, in fact promotion were related to the sonority of the employee. He creates a completely new promotion rules, based strictly on performance, without any relation between ages of the employee. In this way he creates common rules between the two companies and on the other hand he motivates young and not members of the team to work hard. This was completely different from the Japanese culture, but after a while, when the Japanese emplo yee understood the benefits of this action, it was easier for them accepted and gave them also, a huge motivation, because of the egalitarian style. Moreover, he established nine cross-functional teams; each was led by two executive members and headed by a pilot. Further, team members were selected by the leaders and the pilot. The purpose was to create a cross functional and international team, in order to share competencies, experiences and see the company as whole together. Moreover, Carlos Ghosn in 2001 hired a high-profile female Japanese executive for heading Nissan communication department; in fact she was the first woman to lead an important function inside the company. This new person did not create any contrast inside the company, because of the new mentality that step by step the CEO was trying to build inside the Nissan-Renault company. In the past, in Japanese culture an act likes that could create problems or just loose of power from the manager, but because of the lon g training and the new cross-cultural vision, what in the past would be a conflict, now it is a new benefit. Undoubtedly, there were some radical cultural differences between the two companies, Japanese culture is more collectivistic, as oppose to the French one that on the workplace is more individualistic. This two particular aspect of cross-cultural were explained by Hofstede before and Trompenaars later, even if with some differences. As a matter of fact, the former conceptualize the differences between individualism and collectivism as general differences between cultures. The author point out that on a scale of 50 different countries, with values between 91 and 6, the IDV value for France people are 71 so pretty high, as oppose to the Japanese with only 41, which show a more collectivistic culture instead on individualistic. The latter, on the other hand emphasis more frequent reference to managerial implication, even though the general sense is really close to what Hofstede set out. This last aspect can be a practical point that Renault and Nissan managers and employee had studied du ring the first months training, with the purpose to avoid problems inside the cross cultural team and colleagues indeed. Moreover, Hofstede explained the different point of view that some countries have about masculinity and femininity, in fact based on the authors fourth dimension, he underlined that the Japanese country is the first country for masculinity, such as competiveness and performance, with a score of 95 out of 5 and France only 45 out of 5, definitely with more femininity values, for instance relationship and a concern for the quality of life. This shows a huge difference between the two countries, but due to the high Japanese masculinity, for Carlos Ghosn (Renault-Nissan CEO) was the perfect synergy, in fact Nissan employees found a strong new management, which gave to the alliance new rules, with a continue demand of high performance and even more hard competiveness than before, because more egalitarian. On the other hand, we can find in Hofstede also same synergy; the first one is with the power distance, in fact following the author research France (68/104) is slightly more hierarchical than Japan (54/104) which is more equalitarian, even though the substantial difference with the two countries is really minimal. The second possible common point is with the last Hofstede dimension the uncertainty avoidance, where both countries show a closer score (92/112 France and 86/112 Japan), which underline a predisposition for the roles; which definitely prove an important aspect for a strong alliance. As Trompenaars and Hampden -Turner (1997, Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business) identified and analyzed seven different dimension, one in particular is the neutral/emotional dimension, where they describe the cultural contrast between countries where emotions are masked and others where emotions are exhibit openly, also inside a business situation. Moreover, the two authors emphasis the cultural differences between south European and Japan, the former in general tend to exhibit without any separation between emotion and reasoning. The latter, on the other hand, demonstrate that the 74% of Japanese do not want to express inside a workplace strong emotions. The points just mention above are absolutely a cultural difference, which can create discontent and fracture inside a new alliance, if the respective company do not know that it is more a behavioural aspect rather than a value in itself. Furthermore, Trompenaars and Hampden -Turner also wrote about the role of societal culture at the organization level, believing that corporate culture is shaped not only by technologies and market but by the cultural preferences of leaders and employees. This is another important point that links the two authors with the new Nissan-Renault vision. A common aspect that both Hofstede and Trompeenars mention in their studied is the negotiation aspect, in some cases if the two parts do not know the opposite habit respect the understanding and agreement phases, these can create some misunderstanding and emphasis the difference between a Middle East country and European or Western Countries (USA). Indeed, during Renault- Nissan negotiation the two CEO (at that time were Schweitzer and Hanawa) met dozen times, with the purpose to learn, trust and understand each other and in this way imagine a future alliance between their companies. Therefore, the second step was to put together for six months (before the alliance) some of the top executives, with the aim of forging a formal alliance between the companies. After that Schweitzer and Hanawa chose 100 engineers and managers from both companies to work together, with the intent to joint team study and without any formal objective and free from cultural stereotypes. Both companies have i nvested time, resources and money for a long period negotiation with the purpose to discover the possible synergies without pay attention to the economical aspect. According to Schwartz researches, the two core bipolar dimensions identified were: Self-transcendence/ self- enhancement and Conservatism and Openness to change, the last one is the first link for the two companies, in fact, even though in different way, both have been opened to change. Nissan had completely changed management structure, part of the company vision and it become more transparent and communicative; on the other hand, Renault brought to Nissan important key people (CEO C.Ghosn, product development P. Pelata and finance T. Moulonguet), in order to give to the alliance strong brick for the companys revival. Moreover, both companies since the beginning have been opened to share engineers, idea and platforms. The second point correlated with Schwartz (2000) studies is with the three indices and in particular with Mastery and Harmony, where according to the authors research the Japanese culture appear more focus for control and change the natural and social environment. On the Renault- Nissan alliance this has not been a problem, because of the common vision focusing to restore Nissans company. According to Hall (1990) search he point out in his model the difference between high and low context societies. In the high context societies are often stress the importance of establishes good social relations based on trust and respect, this is an useful link with the point already mention before about the negation period coped with the two associates. Further, Hall identify three distinct categories: High- context, Medium- context and Low- context. Japanese culture reflect for the author more a high-context model, as opposed to France culture which result more on the medium-context categories; some of the points mention of this model could create inside the Renault-Nissan alliance some problem, because of the different way to think and manage the situation. According to Hughes and Weiss (Harvard Business Review, 2007) -The number of corporate alliances rises 25% a year. And those partnerships account for nearly 33% of many companies revenue and value. Yet the failure rate for alliances stays close at 60%-70%, that is because too many firms trust too much on conventional advice for managing alliances- -such as Focus on defining a business plan or Minimize conflict. The idea in practice from my point of view is that companies need to focus not only on the business plan but also on the partnerships working relationship and, rather than suppressing disagreements, exploring conflicts to find sources of value in partner companies differences. Therefore, the authors recommend five different practices in order to managing alliances: Develop the right working relationship Peg metrics to progress Leverage differences Encourage collaboration Manage internal stakeholders. The suggestion for the first one is to define exactly how the companies will work together. For example, clarify what mutual trust and respect mean to each of the corporations. Articulate how they will make decisions, allocate resources, and share information. The second point is to Peg metrics to progress,  alliances require time to pay off financially and alliance does not reach significant result in the first period, (month or even in the first year). Third points that the authors underline are the Leverage differences,  companies can share advantage from partners different, for instance: know-how, markets, customers, and suppliers. Yet other types of differences (such as contrasting cultures) can direct to uncomfortable conflict. Instead of hiding conflict, surface it and find ways to use your differences to create value. Another important practical point is to Encourage collaboration in fact if a problem come up, rather than prejudge someone or something, it is always better try to analyse of how both parties contributed to it and what each can do to improve it. The last one is to Manage internal stakeholders, in a practical way most of the external alliances depend on cooperation from internal units in each company. The purpose i s to be sure that all internal players are involved in supporting the alliance and committed for the success. From my point of view, the two authors express some important guide for making a good alliance, such as encourage collaboration, uses the differences for create value or create inside the company mutual trust and respect, all the points mention before are well express also inside the Renault-Nissan alliance, as some of the core value of the alliance. In addition, Carlos Ghosn definitely represents a strong figure for the alliance, probably a part of the heart of the company. He begun Nissan COO in 1999 and with the Nissan Revival Plan (NRP) gave to the alliance immediately clear qualitative and quantitative targets, with the aim to achieve all of them in no more than 3-4 year. He imposed a common restructuring, with tangible but challenging mission and a share vision The return to profit. Nevertheless, the NRP as mention before Ghosn gave a lot of importance about cross-cultural team, link both of companies with the same rules, since the first moment he always tried to avoid cultural stereotype and created work teams with both nationalities together. Carlos is a charismatic business man, but is also a clever CEO, who knows that he could not overcome or transcended cultural differences, only with is personal quality. Therefore, he mixed both leadership quality and cultural synergies with the intention to create the perfect allianc e. J. Collin and W. lazier (Beyond 1992) wonderful explain the role of a Leader, all the first chapter of the book Entrepreneurship (turning your business into an enduring company) is dedicate in leadership style. The two authors identified a guide for an effective leadership function and style; for the former they specified that the purpose is catalyze a clear and compelling vision that is shared by the group and is acted upon. For the latter, they recognized seven common elements for consider an effective leader style, plus the individual personality characteristics: Authenticity, Decisiveness, Focus, Personal Touch, Hard/soft people skills, Communication Ever forward All the points mentions above are decisiveness for build a strong leadership; as a matter of fact most of them are easily connected with Renault-Nissan alliance. The first share aspect is that Carlos Ghosn gave immediately an authentic vision for the new alliance and he carries this authenticity out to the major strategic decision made by the company. Moreover, he is a role model of the value and beliefs through his day-to-day actions, in this way all the company should be a role model of its philosophy as exemplified by its major decisions. The second point is absolutely the decisiveness , in fact Carlos showed immediately the ability to decide what it was better for the alliance and what not ( an example could be the historical supplier Keiretzu that he cut off, without any doubt, because not anymore essential for the company). Other important point already amply discuss before are be focus, Personal Touch and hard/soft people skills for instance, He creates a completely new promot ion rules, based strictly on performance and new cross- cultural teams, with the purpose to used the common synergies and learn from the future conflict. Communication is a crucial point for this alliance, because Carlos Ghosn has completely changed the way of how to communicate inside Nissan, in fact he establish an absolutely transparent, open, precise and functional communication inside the company but also outside such as the media. The CEO believes that if people do not know the priority, do not understand the strategy, where the company is going, which one are the critical objectives. For his point of view confusion is the first sign of trouble; with large amount of different cultures and countries, it is important to be precise and factual, in order that people can see and measure. To sum up, more or less ten years ago Renault-Nissan was considered an impossible alliance, there were apparently too many economical problems, cultural and organizational differences. However, during these eleven years the two companies have become the number four and five profitable largest car manufacturer companies on the world. Therefore, I would like to emphasize the last element of effective leadership style: ever forward mentality. Since the beginning, Carlos Ghosn has always moving forward progressing- before as an individual and later transmitting this new values to the alliance. This new open-mind way of how to think, collaborate, cooperate between teams and share ideas, combine two cultures and languages together, broken any kind of stereotypes and avoid cultural shock. With the aim to achieve an unique common goal be profitable again and create a longevity alliance. Renault-Nissan from my point of view is the perfect example of the effective power of a strong and well establish cross-cultural alliance. Doriana Carlucci S00402667

Women in the Progressive Era Essay -- American History

In the 1890s, American women emerged as a major force for social reform. Millions joined civic organizations and extended their roles from domestic duties to concerns about their communities and environments. These years, between 1890 and 1920, were a time of many social changes that later became known as the Progressive Era. In this time era, millions of Americans organized associations to come up with solutions to the many problems that society was facing, and many of these problems were staring American women right in the face. Women began to speak out against the laws that were deliberately set against them. Throughout this time period, women were denied the right to vote in all federal and most state held elections. Women struggled to achieve equality; equality as citizens, equality in the work place, and equality at home. During this time, Americans worked to fight corruption in government, reduce the power of big business, and improve society as a whole. Just as the Irish wanted good work and the farmers wanted a good banking system, women wanted equality. Women and women's organizations worked for various rights for different groups of people. They not only worked to gain the right to vote, they also worked for political equality and for social reforms. But how did this all start to happen? It didn’t happen overnight, and it wasn’t a one-person battle. Women wanted the same rights as men already had. But they didn’t just stop there, women played a major role in the rise of the child labor laws, stood up for minorities, and they wanted prostitution to end. Most people who opposed woman suffrage believed that women were less intelligent and less able to make political decisions than men were. Opponents argued th... ... â€Å"75 Suffragists.† Women’s Studies.(29 October 2003). Berkeley, Kathleen C. The Women’s Liberation Movement in America. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1999. Frankel, Voralee and Nancy Schrom Dye. Gender. Class, Race, and Reform in the Progressive Era. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1991. Freeman, Julie. The Progressive Era. 11 February 2002. (04 November 2003). Kerber, Linda K., Alice Kessler-Hessler and Kathryn Kish Sklar. US History as Women’s History. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995. â€Å"Living the Legacy: The Women's Rights Movement 1848 - 1998." The National Women's History Project. 1997. (30 October 2003). Muncy, Dr. Robyn. Women in the Progressive Era. 30 March 2003. (04 November 2003). Schneider, Dorothy. American Women in the Progressive Era 1900-1920. New York: Facts on File, 1993.

Character Sketches Essay

George was a bank clerk (who ‘goes to sleep at a bank from ten to four each day, except Saturdays, when they wake him up and put him outside at two ‘) and was living in a back room of the same house. The landlady suggested that, to save money, the two might share a room. They ‘chummed ‘ together for some years – both shared a love of the theatre -and a life-long friendship was formed. George, who remained a bachelor, rose to become manager of Barclays Bank in the Strand and outlived. Character sketch of Harris – Harris is a vain fellow who pretends to be extremely hard working but usually pushes off the burden on other people. he is outspoken and does not hesitate to tell his friends what he thinks about them even if it may not be pleasant. for example he outwardly tells george that his new blazer is utterly revolting and that he must not wear it around them (harris and j). when harris takes on a job he makes a huge fuss out of it like the narator;s uncle podger. it may not be anything majorly important but if harris is going to do it †¦. the world would know about it. he also thinks very highly of himself and his voice though his friends do not want him to even attempt singing. he is extremely fascinated by tombs and graveyards much to j ‘s dislike. he is also quite short tempered and it is best to let him rant off his anger rather than try and talk to him about it.he wouldn ‘t mind a drink at any time of the day and enjoys the company of his friends . Character sketch of Jerome – Jerome is the narrator of the book. He is a young, single middle-class man living in London, much like the author himself at the time of the publication of the book, and the initial J is possibly meant to suggest that he stands in for Jerome. J is fond of history and literature and spends much of his time daydreaming about the days when knights roamed the countryside of England. This daydreaming sometimes gets him into trouble when he does not pay suitable attention to what he is doing. J, like his two friends on the boat trip, is a little vain and conceited, but he realizes it and pokes gentle fun at himself, his friends, and the habits of others like them through his anecdotes, where he and his friends are often the butt of ego-skewering jokes. J has always been fond of boats, but prefers the old fashioned†¦ Character sketch of Montmorency – Montmorency is the dog that accompanied the three men in their river trip. Monymorency looked like an angel sent to Earth in the form of a small Fox Terrier. He had a gentle noble expression which brought tears to the eyes of elderly folk. When Monmorency first arrived , the author thought that he would not live long. But , he soon changed his opinion about Montmorency when his true nature was exposed. The author had to pay for chickens Montmorency had killed and had to drag him out of umpty street fights. Once Montmorency killed the neighbours cat and on one occassion he had kept a man stuck in his own toolshed for about two hours. The author ‘s gardener made money by betting on Montmorency ‘s rat-killing skills. He liked to roam around and fight with dogs of a similar disreputable nature. Therefore, he enjoyed places like inns and pubs.

Paper Proposal Research

Paper Proposal Research Paper Proposal Research Paper Proposal Research: Think before Writing Writing of a paper proposal is the first step you should take before getting down to your paper project. You may wonder whether it is really necessary to write this paper proposal. Yes, it is! But it should be noticed that many students do not understand why they have to write any additional papers except their assignment paper. So, lets explain you the issue. Actually, you support your prospective paper project by writing a paper proposal. You should convince your audience that the topic your have chosen is actual. Besides, you should prove that it is not studied completely; that is why your investigation is worth making. Thus, you see that the success of your paper project depends on a paper proposal considerably. That is why you should think over your paper proposal well and make a kind of paper proposal research. That means that you should think over what points you will highlight in your paper proposal and in what way you will put them. Paper Proposal Research Writing Steps Speaking about the paper proposal research one can point out the following steps you should take to write a convincing paper proposal: Topic. It is obvious that any paper proposal research should begin with studying of the topic you are going to write your paper project on. What kind of study should it be? You should answer the following questions:What are the matter points of the topic? Is the chosen topic actual? Who investigated it before? Of course, you should also provide the background information in your paper proposal. So, you should study informational materials on the topic properly. Literature. You should review informational sources that your paper will be based on. State works of researchers who investigated the issue. This part of your paper proposal research should prove that, firstly, your project has the solid basis and, secondly, you have already studied some information on the topic. Research question. What ex actly are you going to study? You should determine a point of the topic that is the most interesting for you and state it in your paper proposal. Methodology. In what way are you going to make your investigation? You should determine what methods you will apply in your study. Forecasts. How can you catch the interest of your audience? Of course, by making some predictions. So, what results of your study do you expect? Giving some forecasts at the end of your paper proposal will make it intriguing. Paper Proposal Research: Get Help! Thus, these are the main steps of the paper proposal research that will help you write a good paper proposal. If you have any difficulties with your paper project proposal writing, you may look for help in any paper project proposal sample placed in the Internet or contact us! We guarantee you professional help!