How does Shakespeare create an atmosphere of evil and disorder in Act 1 of Macbeth Essays

How does Shakespeare make an air of wickedness and turmoil in Act 1 of Macbeth Essays How does Shakespeare make an air of wickedness and turmoil in Act 1 of Macbeth Paper How does Shakespeare make an air of fiendishness and turmoil in Act 1 of Macbeth Paper Article Topic: Macbeth Shakespeare is prestigious worldwide as perhaps the best dramatist that at any point lived, and is known for a large number of his great strategies. Anyway perhaps the best thing about his play Macbeth is the brilliant feeling of environment acquired all through. He does this both in exceptionally inconspicuous manners that one may not see when first watching or understanding Macbeth, and in increasingly evident ways that are obvious to all. In act 1 scene 1 we are first acquainted with the witches, they are the main individuals we meet and would have gotten a solid response from an Elizabethan crowd. The witches are arranged in a front line, so effectively a feeling of contention and distress is being made. There is a tempest seething all through this scene, which brings through clash however this time in nature and demonstrates that these witches have this impact on the world and make solid issue. As of now we are persuaded that the witches are related with Macbeth, we know this as the third witch says There to meet with Macbeth. We dont yet know what macbeth's identity is however from this presentation a group of people may accept he is of terrible character to connect with such outsiders. As indicated by their portrayal the witches look like witches and are profoundly unnatural, both to take a gander at, and in the manner in which they influence the their environmental factors. One of the most well known expressions from one of Shakespeares plays is the witches serenade, Fair is foul, and foul is reasonable. This fair paints a more grounded picture; that these witches are untouchables and dont adjust to indistinguishable standards from the remainder of society. It shows they have various qualities and ethics, if any whatsoever. This serenade additionally gives us motivation to be careful about the witches and to step with alert. Another fascinating point about this scene is one of Shakespeares increasingly unpretentious gadgets, yet one that is actually quite cunning. Shakespeare utilizes ten syllables for each line for his characters, however note, in this scene the witches are given shorter lines with just seven syllables. A case of this is the initial line When will we three meet once more, it has a totally extraordinary musicality to the lines of his different jobs. This is simply one more way a feeling of agitation and unnaturalness is depicted here. In act 1 scene 2 and we are in the midst of the Kings camp. There has been an episode of foul play and lies; this might be viewed as a test among great and wickedness; anyway it would show up great has prevailed upon as the trickster is discovered. The King was accepted by Jacobeans to be an immediate connect to God that places the King above everybody on earth. This is known as the heavenly right of Kings. The main we are told about Macbeth is the point at which he is depicted as a decent respectable man, yet we are likewise made mindful of what brutality and annihilation he is fit for when in fight. He is contrasted with a lion; lofty and regarded, however ready to cause decimation inconceivably effectively whenever incited. The crowd watching this most likely would have considered this to be all the markings of a fine man. A decent warrior is admired; respect and mental fortitude are characteristics anybody would appreciate. There is another aggravation in nature when we meet the witches for the second time in scene 3. We learn of something the witches have done to a human. The witches appear to be glad for tormenting a youngster whos spouse happened to agitate the subsequent witch. This would have frightened the Elizabethans, as they would no uncertainty feel awkward that witches could meddle with human issues. We are told how unimportant, savage and rough the witches can be in this scene. The subsequent witch groans that a mariners spouse would not impart a few chestnuts to her. She at that point proceeds to gloat about the torment they put her better half through. They cast a type of spell which prohibits the mariner from resting. Rest is seen even now as a characteristic decent as a very remarkable need as food and water seem to be, there is likewise sure guiltlessness about it. However the witches have removed it from the mariner without a minutes faltering. They consider it to be a touch of light diversion, this represents the various ethics the witches seem to need to people. There is unquestionably a quality of emotional incongruity about it. This assault the witches make additionally shows how malice is related with an assault on what is normally acceptable. Inside this scene Macbeth is told he is the new thane of Cawdor, as the witches recently anticipated. This is a dreadfully disturbing explanation for the crowd of its time that the witches can be correct. This would be a terrifying idea to anybody viewing, particularly an Elizabethan crowd. Act 1 scene 4 sees King Duncan reporting his new replacement, Malcolm. Obviously this is the undeniable decision to any other person however it isn't what Macbeth was anticipating. It comes as an amazement to Macbeth as the witches anticipated to him that he would be above all else. This implied Macbeth expected he would be Duncans replacement. Macbeth has just got shrewd considerations crawling at his inner voice at this point and starts what is to be an actually very terrible chain of occasions. Additional confirmation of how Macbeth is beginning to think about horrible things like violations against the celestial right of Kings is the point at which he says, Stars shroud your flames meaning whatever horrendous things he intends to do, he needs the haziness to be his shield. There are a few references all through the play to this likeness of light representing all that is acceptable, and dim being a concealing spot for fiendish. This implies our darker characters, for example, Lady Macbeth, Macbeth and even the witches regularly allude to it. So as of now in the primary demonstration, the battle among great and insidiousness in Macbeths uncontrolled brain implies breaks are beginning to show up in his character. So Macbeths want for power is making him mull over horrendous things against the social request; scrutinizing the extraordinary chain of being and the perfect right of lords. Where as a striking differentiation King Duncan, who has been depicted as a decent character all through, says, Signs of nobleness like stars sparkle on all deservers this essentially implies great individuals get their prizes. So the fight among great and insidiousness, and light and dim is pursuing. Scene 5 opens with Lady Macbeth perusing so anyone might hear a letter from Macbeth. Anyway before this scene even truly starts something very odd has occurred, so far the grouping of scenes has included the witches in each other scene, presently when it ought to be the witches we slice to Lady Macbeth. Is this a connection between the witches and Lady Macbeth? The letter is clarifying what the witches outlined for Macbeth, about him being thane and in the end lord. Woman Macbeths response to this is very amazing, she accepts he will be the thane of Cawdor and would be acceptable at it as well, however fears that he is too full othmilk of human thoughtfulness. This appears to suggest she thinks he isn't sufficiently intense and is powerless in character. Presently this in itself is alarming to the Elizabethans, how dare a lady say this regarding her better half! Ladies were intended to comply with their spouses and hold no genuine sentiment, and here is Lady Macbeth is calling her significant other frail and excessively delicate! She is stating this as of it is an awful thing to show regular sympathy. At that point after a detachment has come to reveal to her that the King is accompanying her better half she dispatches into another monologue. She gathers spirits and says unsex me here she requests that they remove everything that makes her a lady. This is unnatural and very upsetting symbolism being utilized here. At the point when she says this it shows an exceptionally unnatural want and is evidence of her insensitivity. In the event that she removed everything that made her a lady she would be not able to manage a youngster, but then she appears to be totally unbothered by this. This shows she has definitely no maternal nature, and is along these lines ailing in empathy, yet she likewise demonstrates that in different manners. She likewise says go to my womans bosoms and take my milk for nerve this further shows my point about her absence of maternal sense. She additionally alludes again here to drain, milk being compared to blamelessness, an infant relies upon it and it is all it needs to live and develop, however Lady Macbeth needs none of it. Next she proceeds to state come thick night and nor paradise peep through the cover of the dull demonstrating she is shrewd as she is utilizing this similie of light and dim and great and wickedness once more. The sweeping remark is likewise another reference to rest. The Macbeths and the witches are related with underhandedness and demolition while great characters like ruler Duncan are related with characteristic products like food and rest. Woman Macbeth appears to be hindered when Macbeth shows up yet proceeds to welcome him in any case. She reveals to him he needs to murder the King, and says he should look like thinnocent blossom, But be the snake undert She is stating he should act like the friendly host yet act shrewd as not to raise any doubts. The look like and the yet be are instances of similar sounding word usage which includes a cadence, earnestness and a capacity to the sentence. It makes the sentence all the more an order also. This could likewise be connected to when Eve drove Adam off track in the nursery of Eden, Lady Macbeth is enticing Macbeth to abhorrent currently, erring simply like Adam and Eve. At that point Lady Macbeth teaches her better half to leave everything to her. The impact she has on him is very entrancing, she can guide him and will hear no expression of grievance; she has him wrapped round her little finger. In scene 6 Lady Macbeth invites the visitors as though everything was totally ordinary. Duncan gives his gratefulness for her grace and friendliness and we are left reasoning if just he knew. Scene 7 is another scene with just Lady Macbeth and Macbeth in. Macbeth is stating to his significant other he doesnt figure he can do it, that Duncan is excessively trusting and it would not be right. He discloses to her he just wont do it, obviously Lady Macbeth

In what ways and how effectively can governments facilitate the Essay

In what ways and how successfully would governments be able to encourage the advancement of significant enterprises and add to national intensity - Essay Example These are special exchange understanding that permits free market access to the part nations. Increment in incorporation understandings shows inspiration of the national governments (Dennis, 2002). This is a technique to pick up bit of leeway of size in advertise a making an enormous market for the significant businesses and shielding them from outside rivalry (Hitt Ireland and Hoskisson,â 1999). Evacuation of exchange obstructions may lead the organizations to realign their hierarchical structures to concentrate on a local market. These reconciliations will keep on being building obstructs in the worldwide economy. The arrangement worldwide joining like European Union changed open acquirement (Stanley Hoffman, 2002). It likewise diminished the expense of vulnerability of various monetary standards. Tesco is the UK’s driving food retailer, profits by European Union less guideline. In this way, it has had the option to infiltrate in a few nations inside the district. US likewise went into an exchange concurrence with Canada and Mexico, NAFTA to dispense with exchange limitations (UN, 2001). NAFTA likewise energizes improvement of frameworks inside part states. Wal-Mart had the option to enter Mexico showcase in 1990, and by 2004 it turned into the biggest retail location. This has empowered the Mexico retail area to develop after the exchange progression under NAFTA. In addition, NAFTA has required remote direct interests in Mexico (Paprzycki and Fukao,â 2008). The Agreement in the Southeast Asia (ASEAN) was shaped to advance multilateral financial collaboration inside the Pacific district (Rondinelli, Heffron and Pacific Basin Research Center, 2007). The pioneers invested in accomplishing free and open exchange the locale. BYD likewise has profited by zero levies under the organized commerce progression among China and ASEAN. The market frameworks are the drivers on the national monetary development and courses through which private venture

Leadership And Service Improvement Management Essay

Authority And Service Improvement Management Essay The investigation of pioneers and authority has prompted many contending hypotheses which endeavor to distil the embodiment of incredible administration into its segment parts, to permit others to obtain a portion of these qualities, and become increasingly powerful pioneers. The most punctual speculations on administration would in general accept that pioneers were conceived, and that authority was not an ability, or set of aptitudes that could be procured. The general impression was that Great Men had acquired administration characteristics from their precursors, which would make them powerful pioneers when put in places of power (Kirkpatrick and Locke 1991). This is certifiably not an exceptionally accommodating approach to take a gander at administration, and never really help understudies of authority in their endeavors to turn out to be better pioneers themselves. It isn't, however an incredible jump from distinguishing regular pioneers to recognizing which parts of their character or character mark them out from others. This supports the Trait hypotheses of administration. Attribute hypothesis was concentrated broadly in the mid piece of the twentieth Century, and had a wide scope of results. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) clarify that characteristic hypothesis made no suppositions regarding the roots of the qualities considered, however essentially featured the contrasts among pioneers and non-pioneers. In 1974, Stodgill distributed the aftereffects of his investigations of initiative hypothesis, and distinguished 22 characteristics and abilities which are available to changing degrees in the people contemplated. This didn't show how people could turn out to be better pioneers, be that as it may, the recognizable proof of administration as an ability has been crucial in the resulting advancement of initiative preparing. He himself at last inferred that An individual doesn't turn into a pioneer by temperance of the ownership of a mix of attributes. (Stodgill 1948 refered to in Levine 2008) McGregor (2005) took a gander at authority practices as identifying with basic qualities or world perspectives. They analyzed the manners by which administrators and pioneers moved toward an assignment, and attempted to comprehend the inspiring elements. McGregror (1960) felt there were two significant speculations of human inspiration which lay behind the activities of the pioneers he considered. His speculations were named X and Y. Hypothesis X expect that the normal individual characteristically loathes work, and in this way should be forced to perform at the necessary level. The spurring factors here are outward. Hypothesis Y accept that work is a characteristic piece of life, as much as is play or rest, and inherent inspiration is vital. This inherent inspiration can be seen as a declaration of the Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow 1943) crafted by McGregor educated the creation regarding strategies to delineate practices. Blake and Mouton (1964) plotted worry for creation against worr y for individuals. This delivers an accommodating structure for mapping practices, yet it is fairly detached in structure, and appears to be for the most part valuable for reflection or evaluate, to advise future undertakings. It doesn't really advise pioneers regarding what conduct is most appropriate to the gathering they are working with at a specific time. Activity focused authority was proposed as an administration model by Adair (1973). His time in the Army and work as a coach at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst drove him to build up a model that thinks about three spaces; Task, Team and Individual. He contends that every area requires the consideration of a pioneer, however the general significance of each will change. The relationship of these areas is spoken to by a venn chart: Assignment needs Group upkeep needs Person needs This model at that point subtleties the territories a pioneer should address in every space: Errand: Practical administrative worries, for instance making an arrangement, checking execution Group: Facilitating bunch working by concurring gauges of conduct, settling bunch clashes and so forth. Individual: Ensuring people are proceeding as well as could be expected by supporting through difficulties, assigning work as indicated by qualities and so forth. There is impressive cover and communication between every one of these spaces, and it is contended that consideration regarding every area is required for a reasonable group. The key element of this model which had such an effect was giving a down to earth system which permitted pioneers to consolidate a portion of the gentler aptitudes of administration with progressively administrative attributes of time the board and errand center. Situational/Contingency Theories of Leadership The investigations of administration talked about above have all taken a gander at pioneers and authority conduct and portrayed them, permitting pioneers to break down their conduct. The speculations above, after some time have been created to incorporate a level of dynamism, however were at first elucidating works out. It was the acknowledgment that there was not really on right method of driving that provoked pondering the chance of versatile styles of administration (Schermerhorn 1997). The investigation of administration in various circumstances and settings, and the perception that the best style of authority changed as for situational factors prompted situational initiative models. The soonest portrayed was the Contingency Model (Fiedler 1964). This model depends on a self-evaluated scale to decide a favored authority style. Fiedler at that point contemplated working conditions, and portrayed them through three factors: Pioneer part relations how willing colleagues trust and will follow a pioneer Errand structure: how all around characterized an undertaking is, or in the event that it observes a standard system Position Power: the degree of the prizes and disciplines a pioneer has accessible. Through his investigations, Fiedler built a visual manual for speak to his discoveries about which sort of pioneer was best given the situational factors. The model expresses that pioneers with high LPC scores should work with groups where the circumstance is reasonably positive. The more undertaking centered pioneers will be increasingly viable in circumstances which are either entirely great or troublesome to the pioneer. This model has been concentrated widely and has gotten both analysis (Ashour 1973) support (Strube and Garcia 1981). A significant wellspring of debate in this model is the LPC. One significant point to note is that Fiedler felt pioneers would discover their conduct hard to change, and associations ought to accordingly pick the right chief for a given group. This is rather than different models which propose pioneers ought to be versatile. The Hersey-Blanchard (1969) model of situational initiative glances at an alternate variable in the group setting; the development of devotees. The fundamental supposition that will be that a pioneer ought to embrace a style of authority which mirrors the requirements of the group. This is in direct complexity to Fiedlers (1964) affirmation that associations should pick pioneers given the favourability of the circumstance. In this model, an in pairs lattice which is fundamentally the same as the Blake Mouton (1964) Managerial Grid, is utilized to portray four initiative styles: S1: Telling (low relationship, high errand) S2: Selling (high relationship, high errand) S3: Participating (high relationship, low errand) S4: Delegating (low relationship, low errand) There is a going with scale which rates the group a pioneer is worried about: M1: Low ability, and low duty M2: Low ability, and high duty M3: High ability with low/factor duty M4: High ability and high duty The M score for development of the colleagues was created after some time, and was later separated to reflect work and mental development (Hersey and Blanchard 1982). Occupation development is the capacity or ability to play out the assignment close by. Mental development shows inspiration. The model has gotten analysis from a hypothetical viewpoint, and from observational research. Graeff (1983) claims that the development scale is invalid, as it groups laborers who have aptitude and are unmotivated (M3) as more develop than the individuals who need ability yet are committed to a task(M2). He likewise contends that the added substance nature of employment and mental development in the model is invalid. He bolsters this view by recommending that in assignments where expertise necessities are low, inspiration has an a lot more noteworthy significance. One investigation into the model inferred that, since high adherent development didn't block the requirement for oversight, their outcomes loaned almost no help to the model (Cairns et al 1998). This examination however had methodological defects, a slanted populace, and described some help for part of the SLT model. The down to earth use of this model depends on the capacity of the pioneer to decide the development of their devotees, and mirror this in their authority style. Maybe the most significant part of the model is the acknowledgment that initiative styles are not fixed, and pioneers can change their way to deal with suit a given group or person. In present day human services settings, there has been an adjustment in the idea of groups. There is not, at this point a steady, little, various leveled group. Rather, groups shape and scatter on a nearly move by-move premise. To lead viably in this condition, it is important to be versatile, and have the option to help colleagues to understand their latent capacity. The models portrayed above outline that there is nobody most ideal approach to lead a group. Rather, by valuing the various circumstances, people and undertakings included, pioneers have a superior possibility of shaping groups which can adapt to the changing requests of the cutting edge NHS. Maybe Goleman (2000, p.4) has contended this most smoothly through his work which uncovered that the best heads don't depend on just a single administration style; they use them flawlessly and in various measure contingent upon the business circumstance. Administration Improvement Methods: The writing depicts an enormous number of administration improvement techniques which have been applied in some structure to medicinal services settings. Most assistance improvement approachs that have been executed in medicinal services have been embraced from industry, where

Theology College Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Religious philosophy College - Essay Example It must, in this manner, be totally ignored as a potential alternative. The beginning stage for any thought of premature birth as an answer for a dangerous and undesirable pregnancy must be the affirmation of God as both the provider and the taker of life. None can, and none should endeavor to usurp this job. For sure, as Bonhoeffer composed, Devastation of the undeveloped organism in the mother's belly is an infringement of the option to live which God has offered to this beginning life. To bring up the issue whether we are here concerned as of now with an individual or not is only to confound the issue. The basic actuality is that God unquestionably proposed to make an individual and that this incipient person has been purposely denied of his life. Also, that is only murder.1 As a minister, notwithstanding, and as quickly addressed in the previous, it need be recognize that the little youngster should get going through a time of blame, aggravated with despair. These two are most likely at the core of her apparent, albeit unexpressed, prejudice towards fetus removal as an answer. ... Had she or her family been in a situation to bear the cost of the pregnancy and the youngster, her circumstance may not be as tricky as it right now seems to be. This is a reality that I can't overlook and which I should communicate thoughtful comprehension of. Feelings and individual suppositions aside, be that as it may, religious principle can't be changed or custom fitted to suit our quick purposes however need be reliably applied and clung to, regardless of conditions. Philosophical tenet states the privilege to life. As Bonhoeffer insists, God gives before He demands.3 The suggestion is clear: the privilege to life prevails over, and goes before the obligations of life. The hatchling has a privilege to life and the obligations partner with that life are, in spite of the fact that of basically significant concern, optional to the confirmed right. In like manner, instead of be affected by the financial and social contemplations and worries that the embryo, as a real existence, will carry with him/her, the essential impact, and the determinant of any choice made as for this case, ought to be the privilege to life. The privilege to life, the estimation of life, is a necessary piece of Christian philosophical precept and is confirmed through Soteriology, Christ's Physical Resurrection, and Ecclesiastology. The salvic motivation behind Christ's passing is a confirmation of life and the privilege to life; the Christ's Physical Resurrection is a demonstration of the endless idea of life, from one viewpoint, and to the worth which Christianity puts on real life; the lessons of the Church, those being the educating of Jesus Christ and, the Church's strategic, being the certification of Christ's lessons and

Of Mice and Men Compare and Contrast Free Essays

The book, Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, is around two men named George and Lennie who are living in the hour of the Great Depression. They travel together and after they push themselves into difficulty in the city of Weed, they moved to take a shot at a farm. There is additionally a film, â€Å"Of Mice and Men,† that is dependent on the book. We will compose a custom paper test on Of Mice and Men Compare and Contrast or on the other hand any comparative theme just for you Request Now There are numerous topics in the story, one of them being power. The film varies marginally from the book in the way that it has less models demonstrating the significance of intensity, not at all like the book where there are numerous occurrences of intensity. Most importantly, power is appeared, or in certain occasions not appeared, in the characters. In both the book and the film, George has a specific control over Lennie. He goes about as his dad: reproving him, securing him, and guiding him to his benefit like a typical dad would have. A second character that underpins the topic of intensity in the book and film is Lennie. In spite of the fact that he doesn’t have a great deal of intelligent force, he is a truly ground-breaking individual in the film and book. He’s tall, solid manufactured, and only all around a major person that can do a gigantic measure of physical work. Another likeness between the book and film identifying with power is Curly, the boss’s child. He’s a little man that likes to boss individuals around and has the notoriety of thrashing greater folks. Despite the fact that there are numerous instances of characters indicating power in both the book and film, there is a case of when the film makes the subject less applicable to the story. In the book, Lennie has the ability to make sure to go to the brush, where George instructed him to go on the off chance that he fell into any difficulty. However, in the film, it was so that Lennie was lost and couldn’t discover the brush. It made Lennie appear to be more helpless and with less consistent force than in the book where he substantiated himself, beside his difficulties. The second subject that the topic is appeared in is occasions. The occasions are both the same and diverse inside the book and film. In both the book and film, George talks for Lennie before the manager when they initially show up at the farm. He’s stressed that Lennie will say something to uncover that he isn’t the most brilliant individual and that it may keep them from working there. A likeness is additionally the way that when George and Lennie were came up short on Weed, they were being pursued for reasons unknown other than the expression of the young lady that Lennie unintentionally terrified. He had no intension of harming her and never did, yet she despite everything had the ability to control everybody to feel that she was attacked by Him. The last comparability of occasions that represent power is when Lennie unintentionally murders the mice, the little dog, and Curly’s spouse. He had so much physical force and didn’t know his own quality that he would execute living things before acknowledging what was going on. This got him into a great deal of difficulty inevitably. A noteworthy distinction in occasions that demonstrates the significance power is that in the book, Curly’s spouse who was initially taken a gander at as a weak, defenseless lady with no control over anybody, out of nowhere exhibited a lot of power more than one of the dark specialists, Crooks. This was an extremely unexpected turnaround in power and changed the reader’s see about her. This occurrence never happened in the film and massively changed the viewpoint of intensity from the book. The last theme that shows the estimation of intensity is the subtleties of the story. Interestingly, in both the film and book Curly’s spouse doesn't have a name. This may have been to infer that her name had little significance or control over the story. Her effect of getting Lennie slaughtered from him inadvertently murdering her had nothing to do with her name. Another detail is that the steady guardian was African-American. This shows an absence of intensity in the film and book since he had to live without anyone else and had no effect on the choices or musings of different men essentially as a result of his race. A third detail is that George was a lot littler than Lennie in the two depictions of the story, yet he had control over Lennie as though he was his dad. This shows despite the fact that one might be incredible with a particular goal in mind like Lennie, they can even now be constrained by somebody that perhaps had more certainty. With everything taken into account, the film gauges the significance of capacity somewhat not exactly the book does. Both the book and movie’s characters are commonly the equivalent, aside from the book shows Lennie with more coherent force than the film accomplishes for when Lennie runs back to the brush to meet George. The occasions are especially similar moreover. However, the film is inadequate with regards to the occasion of Curly’s spouse indicating control over Crooks in his own lodge, which significantly impacts the air of the story. The book and film additionally have comparative subtleties indicating power like Curly’s spouse not having a name, Crooks not having a great deal of intensity as a result of his race, and little George having control over Lennie. Every one of these subjects help impart how the film and book identify with one another for indicating power. The most effective method to refer to Of Mice and Men Compare and Contrast, Essay models

Authoritarian Leadership Guide Definition, Qualities, Pros Cons, Examples

Authoritarian Leadership Guide Definition, Qualities, Pros Cons, Examples “Nobody is going to delegate a lot of power to a secretary that they can’t control.” â€" Michael BloombergAuthoritarian, or autocratic, leadership tends to be viewed rather negatively, even though it is among the most common leadership styles in the business world. The term creates a negative image in most minds; an idea of dictators and tyrants. The images are directly translated into the world of leadership, even though authoritarian leadership can have much to offer. © Shutterstock.com | alphaspiritIn this guide, we will examine the main concepts behind authoritarian leadership and study the core characteristics of the style and the leaders who use it. We’ll also delve into the advantages and disadvantages of the framework, before looking at examples of authoritarian leaders with their weaknesses and strengths.UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENT CONTEXTS OF AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIPTo understand authoritarian leadership and how it works, you should study the history of it. While authoritarianism has been around for a long time, the idea of didn’t form into an official leadership style until the publication of a few major studies. The work of Resis Likert and Douglas McGregor has heavily influenced the birth and popularity of the leadership style.Rensis Likert’s study of leadershipIn the 1960s, an American social psychologist Rensis Likert developed a model describing different management and leadership styles. He and his colleagues set out to ident ify how leader’s communicate with subordinates and what behaviors help improve the productivity of industrial organizations.The Liker four-fold model of leadership styles was based on observational and question-based research, with the experiment taking three decades to conclude. The findings are neatly summarized in the below image: The above management styles are also often referred to as:System 1  â€" Exploitative authoritativeSystem 2 â€" Benevolent authoritativeSystem 3 â€" ConsultativeSystem 4 â€" ParticipativeAs you can see, the focus of the four styles is on how it deals with power and decision-making. At the other end, you have the more participatory styles, where subordinates are able to be part of the process, either through decision-making or consultation. But the other end describes the authoritarian model, where the responsibility lies in the hands of the leader.According to Likert’s findings, the authoritative leadership can either manifest as an exploitative or benevolent. In the former style, the leader takes control because lack of trust in the subordinates. In order to achieve goals, the leader assumes responsibility of guiding the subordinates towards the objectives. Furthermore, the leader motivates the subordinates to act solely through a punishment structure. Likert’s studies showed tha t people under the framework are able to operate functionally because they are afraid of the reprisal.But the authoritative or authoritarian style can be more benevolent as well. Again, the leader is in charge of the decision-making, with the power structure built around a conventional hierarchical model. But there is a bit more trust in the subordinates, with the motivation stemming from rewards rather than punishment. Instead of getting subordinates to complete tasks through the fear of being fired, for example, the leader is using positive rewards. This is generally something like a financial gain, such as a bonus for meeting sales targets.Although Likert’s findings preferred the participative leadership model as the most productive style, with the highest subordinate satisfaction levels, the authoritarian model can also work. Satisfaction under the benevolent authoritative style remained moderate and production was measured to be good. Furthermore, studies conducted by Hay and McBer have later discovered the authoritative leader to have the most positive impact on productivity and job satisfaction.Douglas McGregor and Theory XThe above already pointed out a key theory behind the authoritarian leadership style: the emphasis on motivation. In the 1960s, social psychologist Douglas McGregor published his theories on human motivation and how leadership can use it to drive results. McGregor came up with the contrasting theories: Theory Y and Theory X. From these two motivational explanations, the Theory X is relevant to authoritarian leadership.According to the Theory X, subordinates are naturally unmotivated. Work is not a pleasant thing for the subordinates and it isn’t something they are actively interested in pursuing. In a sense, work is a “necessarily evil” for Theory X subordinates. Due to the lack of motivation, the subordinates are:Likely to avoid responsibility - requiring careful direction from the leadersLikely to need supervision - the lead er needs to control, force and even threaten the subordinates to get resultsLikely to have no ambition or incentive to achieve at work -the subordinates need a strong reward or punishment structure to push themselves forwardMcGregor found that the authoritarian model, where decision-making is centralized in the hands of the leader and worker supervision is enhanced, works the best in producing results. Since the subordinates are not naturally interested in achieving results, control and authority must be established to ensure an organizational efficiency. For the Theory X type of subordinate, the leader’s ability to influence and motivate is key.If people are not interested in work and they are relatively unambitious, then the authoritarian leadership style isn’t considered a negative. For people with these qualities, the increased direction and the lack of power are actually beneficial and make their work experience more pleasant. Therefore, the authoritarian style can make the m feel more relaxed and motivated.In addition, the subordinates are strongly motivated by rewards or the fear of punishment. The subordinate is looking for job security above anything else, the ambition is not to climb up the career ladder or achieve wild dreams. Therefore, being told what to do in a directive manner provides the security they seek. The leadership style ensures they are able to do the job and that they have the support and supervision available to limit their risk of making a mistake. The burden of responsibility is not there to paralyze the subordinates.Similar to Likert’s theory, McGregor also found there to be two spectrums of the authoritarian model. Theory X can manifest as a ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ approach, according to McGregor. Under the hard approach, the supervision is stricter, with the focus being on punishments rather than rewards. On the other hand, the soft approach showcases more flexibility in terms of rules and regulations. The workers are mot ivated through positive reward rather than intimidation. McGregor argues that for the leadership style to work the most efficiently, the leader must follow a balanced approach, with neither too hard nor soft implementation of the style.Overall, the Theory X can lead to consistent results and enhanced productivity. If the workforce can be adequately identified to have the above qualities and assumptions, then utilizing the authoritarian model could lead to higher quality work and better workforce satisfaction.If you are interested in finding out more about the theory, as well as understand what Theory Y assumes about subordinate motivation, check out the below YouTube video. It perfectly encapsulates how the theories are at the opposite ends of the leadership spectrum. THE CORE ELEMENTS OF AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIPThe above outlines the history of the theory and the basic concepts behind the leadership framework. But what are the building blocks of the authoritarian leadership model?H ere’s a look at the key characteristics, as well as an explanation of the different elements that make the model work.Core characteristics of authoritarian leadershipThe authoritarian leadership style rests on three core elements. These not only define the role of the leader, but also how the framework should be implemented. The three characteristics are:Decisions are made by the leader and without the participation or input of the subordinates. Under the framework, the power of decision-making rests solely in the hands of the leader. Depending on the leader’s style, they can involve the subordinates in a consultative role, although this is not specifically characteristic of the style. An authoritarian model rests on the assumption that subordinates are removed from the decision making, with the leader being able to make decisions on their own.The leader presides over the policies and processes. The style involves a lot of micromanagement, as the leader is not just making the de cisions, but also setting out the different processes. The framework generally doesn’t provide the subordinates much room to figure out their way to reach the goals. Instead, the leader outlines the different procedures and policies all subordinates must adhere to. This provides a clear framework for subordinates to operate in and the leader’s role becomes supervisory.The subordinates are directly supervised and monitored by the leader. As eluded in the above point, the leader’s role is to ensure subordinates follow the guidelines effectively. Unlike in certain other leadership styles, the leader doesn’t walk away and return once the process is complete, but stays actively involved with the tasks. The monitoring ensures the leader is able to use the reward and punishment structures efficiently, as well to ensure the team is not slipping further away from the vision.Essentially the authoritarian leadership framework relies on two things: power and efficiency. The power is in the hands of the leader, with established and clear hierarchy. The structure is pre-determined and therefore, guarantees everyone in the organization is aware of his or her place. Furthermore, the purpose of the framework is to improve and to guarantee efficiency.By setting up the procedures, removing the uncertainty of decisions, and enforcing strict supervision, the aim is to drive up productivity and organizational efficiency. Achieving this is a major objective of the leadership model.Authoritarian leadership framework in actionWhat does all of the above look in action? Since the leadership style has such a clear structure, it also operates in a specific manner. In fact, for the authoritarian style to work, the framework must be perfectly established and followed. If the structure misses a key element, the style can lead to more disadvantages, creating more problems than what it solves.If you examine the leadership style in operation, you can narrow down four key elements that a re essential for its success. These key elements also work as steps to establishing the structure, as you need to figure out the first in order to move on to the next one â€" a chain reaction of characteristics.First element involves the establishment of the vision and objective. Under the authoritarian leadership framework, the leader sets a common vision and goals for the team. Unlike in democratic leadership, where the team might join in to decide on the goals, the leader is in charge of setting out the objectives for the team. A bit similar to charismatic leadership, authoritarian leaders must be able to clearly communicate the vision to subordinates. The emphasis is on clarity, as the goals must be outlined clearly to ensure the subordinates understand them.After the vision and objectives are identified, the leader outlines the procedures of achieving these goals and ensures the team knows what they are doing. The authoritarian leader is in charge of creating the structure for getting things done. The model doesn’t provide subordinates the option of figuring out their own route or doing things in a style they see fit. The leadership framework will involve micromanagement and the subordinates are expected to follow these instructions carefully. Again, the procedures must be explained clearly and different steps should be explained properly to limit confusion. As the aim is to reach objectives efficiently, the leader must be able to see the problems even before they arise and create procedures that limit the risk of issues.The third element is about the leader supervising and monitoring the accomplishments of the goals, while ensuring everyone is doing their bit. Under the authoritarian model, the leader’s role isn’t laidback. Unlike the charismatic model, the style isn’t about the macro elements of leadership and about creating the vision. The emphasis of the style is on efficiency and structure. Therefore, it’s the leader’s role to ensure subo rdinates are putting in the effort and following the procedures set by the leader.Finally, the leader either rewards or punishes subordinates during the process. As both Likert and McGregor theorized, the subordinates that best work under this style are mainly motivated by a reward, often a financial one. But they are also driven by the fear of punishment. Therefore, for the leadership framework to work effectively, a clear reward and punishment system must be set out. The subordinate needs to have something to work towards; for example, they might receive a bonus for completing the work on time. On the other hand, good behavior isn’t solely rewarded, but bad behavior is also scrutinized. In the event of inappropriate actions or inefficiency, the leader must have ways to punish the subordinate. The idea is that the threat of punishment will help limit actual failures and motivates subordinates to work hard.A great collection of movie scences that showcase different leadership styl es including directive leadership and transactional leadership. THE QUALITIES OF AN AUTHORITARIAN LEADERLet’s next turn our attention to the authoritarian leader. Since the framework relies heavily on the leader, the person in charge must possess certain characteristics that make the style easier to implement. Furthermore, as the style can have a bad reputation in today’s business world, it’s important to also examine what it looks like to be an authoritarian leader.The characteristics of an authoritarian leaderAuthoritarian leaders should focus on improving the following five characteristics. These qualities can help them perform better at the tasks and support the organization and the employees.ConfidentThe authoritarian leader will be at the centre of operations, holding the strings to ensure everything within the organization goes smoothly. Therefore, the leader must be confident under pressure and trust his or her ability to make the right decisions. While the amount of p ower you have as the leader might seem tempting, having a lot of power isn’t the easiest of responsibilities.As a leader, you will need to be able to make decisions without necessarily consulting with others. The decisions you make could be the right decisions or the wrong ones. The key to success is your ability to stand confident in the face of them and trust your own abilities. Second-guessing is not something an authoritarian leader can afford to do.Confidence is a tricky characteristic to have, as it requires a careful balance of understanding risks and trusting your inner voice. It’s essential you don’t become over-confident as the leader, since this can hurt the validity of the decisions you make. But you need to be able to showcase your strength and belief in your knowledge.Success.com published a great list of tips on becoming more confident. In it, business leaders give advice on things such as dressing up for success, understanding your value outside of the work env ironment, and strengthening your mind through meditation.Action orientedThe authoritarian leadership style is action oriented. The focus is not on personal empowerment or growth, such as in charismatic leadership, but on achieving the objectives of the organization. Therefore, you need to be a leader who is able to focus on the tasks at hand first.The aim of the authoritarian leader is to identify the goals for the organization and to define the path to reaching them. You need to be able to focus on the processes and actions, ensuring the subordinates have clear instructions to perform their specific duties. Action orientated leaders are able to stay focused and help others keep their eyes on the ball. Since the framework calls for efficiency, you can’t spend a lot of time considering your alternatives. You just need to figure an action plan and execute it with your team.If you’d like to improve your ability to focus more on getting things done, rather than taking time to think things through, there are a few clever steps to take. First, you need to learn to not get ahead of yourself. Thinking about the future and what will happen after we achieve something can be an important part of outlining the journey, but you shouldn’t focus too much on the future.Take things as they come and one step at a time. Secondly, learn to prioritize. The below chart outlines how you can become better at focusing on the essential things first using the Eisenhower method: Source:  jamesclear.comFinally, you should examine your schedule in a realistic light. Don’t try to be too ambitious with what you are going to achieve. You need to be realistic with what can be achieved within a certain time and you should prepare for possible complications as well.CompetitiveCompetitive flair is definitely a leadership trait an authoritarian leader wants to train and possess. You need to be willing to push forward and beat the competition, as this is the only way to ensure the organizations progress doesn’t stall. In essence, your drive to be better will boost the company’s ability to respond to problems and to enhance it’s innovative side.As we’ll see later in the article, the authoritarian leadership style often lacks from creativity. But if you are driven by your ambition and thirst for victory, you can guarantee the team doesn’t just ‘settle’ to do the bare minimum.As an authoritarian leader, your competitiveness can be a major boost to the team morale as well. You want to instill a sense of ambition to your team as well, to ensure they feel invested in the process and the organization.SkilledBeing in charge of the team requires plenty from the leader. If you want to be a success, you need to be skilled and willing to keep learning. Since the decisions rely on your expertise, you need to be able to make judgments based on solid understanding of how the industry and the organization operate. As the accountability ultimately lies in your corner, you need to be able to make sound decisions and not just rely on your gut instinct.Your focus naturally must be on understanding your company inside out. It’s important to continually keep an eye on things and analyze which aspects of it require more attention. Furthermore, you need to stay on top of the industry you operate in. Therefore, you want to visit trade shows, read books about the sector, and discuss developments with other people within the industry.But in addition, you also want to improve your leadership skills. An authoritarian leader should be aware of how people behave in different circumstances and how to get the most out of people without sacrificing their leadership style.EmpoweringFinally, an authoritarian leader should also be empowering. It might not seem the first characteristic people identify with the style, but it can actually be helpful in maintaining employee satisfaction and ensuring tasks are efficiently accomplished. If you are able to empower subordinates to better performance, the company will be the first to benefit.Empowering other people is not a difficult task, even when you can’t change or challenge the hierarchy of power. You don’t need to provide the subordinate with the ability to make decisions; you simply need to ensure they have information. Explaining the importance of your chosen procedures can help them feel more involved and allow them to understand why things are done in a certain way.How to be an authorita rian leader?The above characteristics are essential for an authoritarian leader, but just having them doesn’t necessarily mean you are an effective leader. To guarantee you are operating efficiently and leading the troops in an authoritarian model, you need to take the following four steps.The first step involves gaining enough knowledge of the industry, the company and the task at hand. As mentioned above, you need to have a proper and comprehensive understanding of the situation at all times. The leadership framework rests on the shoulders of the leader. If your subordinates are more knowledgeable, then the organization will run into trouble, as there are no structures available for shared decision making.Knowledge and strong skill set are the building blocks of the authoritarian leadership model, but you also need to build relationships where the rules and roles are clear. As a leader, it is your role to establish the structures and communicate these clearly to your subordinate s. For the style to work, each member of the team has to be aware of the responsibilities they have and the objectives they are supposed to achieve.You need to clearly set out the hierarchy structures and make sure people follow the guidelines they are given. The leader-subordinate relationship should also be clearly established and you do want to focus on establishing your authority first. One way to do so is by paying attention to how you speak.The third step requires you to be consistent with your approach to rewards and punishments. Just as with setting up the roles and responsibilities, subordinates must be aware of the reward and punishment structure. The framework requires a solid reward structure, as we saw above, and the only way to make it work is by showing consistency. In the authoritarian model, results matter and if someone is not performing, then the consequences must always be the same no matter the circumstances.Finally, you need to outline clear guidelines for task completion and behavior. If you expect consistency from your subordinates, you must ensure they are always on top of their responsibilities and the processes they are supposed to follow. The leader’s role is to create and support the structure in which the subordinate is free to perform the tasks.Therefore, you need to outline what the subordinate must do, how he or she should do it, and what are the consequences of inaction or the rewards of completion. In addition, you shouldn’t just focus on the tasks, but also the behavior at the workplace. An authoritarian model can create a respectful and happy workplace if it’s clear what type of behavior is not accepted.For example, you need to lay out clearly what are the rules of turning up late or being mean to your co-workers. Focusing on these can help keep staff motivated and provide them with the right space to be productive.ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIPAuthoritarian leadership model comes with its ow n set of advantages and disadvantages. Similar to other leadership styles, when the framework is implemented as intended, it can provide clear benefits to a number of different organizations.But some of its challenges might be difficult to overcome. Therefore, in order to make the most of the framework, it’s important to explore the different sides to the style.Advantages of authoritarian leadershipAuthoritarian leadership style’s major advantage is the clarity in the structure. Since the model is rather rigid, it guarantees everyone is aware of the power structure, the decision making process, and the accountability basis. The simplicity of the model can therefore influence the way the organization operated greatly and guarantee a more efficient performance.In general, this can help boost productivity. The processes are clear, so subordinates are able to focus on the tasks set to them without having to think how and when things are done. For the subordinates this clarity can me an better performance. Uncertainty is generally removed from the situation, as the leader should be able to outline the rules and procedures. Therefore, the subordinate is always aware of what is expected of him and the effort can be put directly in the task and not realizing how to achieve the objective. In certain situations, such as with new employees, this sort of rigid framework of operation can be hugely beneficial.The framework can also lead to fewer mistakes. Since employees have to follow a pre-determined pattern to achieving objectives, the risk of failure can diminish. Processes, which are deemed efficient and effective, will be used and the option for trying something different has been removed. This can help ensure employees don’t risk making mistakes that could damage the company or even injure the employee. Therefore, high-risk industries, like construction, tend to favor the authoritarian style.Overall, the clarity in structure and procedure makes decision-making c learer, which in turn increases organizational effectiveness. When the company faces a decision, the leader can react to it as quickly as possible, since he or she is the only one with the power. There is no need to consult subordinates, leading to a longer period of uncertainty. Instead, the issue can be tackled as the leader sees fit. For this reason, organizations such as the military and healthcare sector can greatly benefit from authoritarian leadership.Company profits can benefit from the style, as deadlines are met on time and risk-taking is limited within the organization. The structure is well rehearsed, creating a system where things are done almost automatically.Disadvantages of authoritarian leadershipBut as mentioned earlier, the authoritarian leadership style has to overcome challenges to work efficiently. There are certain key disadvantages of creating such as clear hierarchy within an organization and directing the decision-making power into the hands of the leader.T he most obvious result is a lack of commitment that subordinates might feel. Since the subordinates are not included in the processes, they can start feeling voiceless members of the organization. In the long term, this can create a drop in motivation to work hard and diminish the commitment levels. The subordinates might feel detached from the organization because the decisions are made for them and they can’t influence most aspects of their work.Overall, the lack of involvement in the process and the fact the subordinates have to obey the orders of the leader can result in resentment. While subordinates can’t expect to always get their way, under the authoritarian leadership model they don’t even get to have an impact on the possible outcome. The decisions are made for them, often without consultation.Since the style lacks involvement and communication, due to the leader holding the total decision-making power, the creativity of the organization can diminish. Creativity ofte n requires the exchange of ideas and back-and-forth discussions with other people. But in the authoritarian leadership framework, the leader simply asks the subordinates to implement the vision set by him or her. The only voice is from the leader, which naturally means other ideas can be left unsaid.This leads to the problem of being reliant on the expertise and knowledge of the leader. The leader has to be the most knowledgeable person in the organization and be able to reinvent himself, as well as the vision for the organization. As soon as the leader starts falling behind on what is happening within the industry, the organization can suffer. Since there are no other voices, the organization can start experiencing the so-called tunnel vision. The ideas of the leader are followed and anything outside of those won’t even be considered. Therefore, the requirements and the pressures on the leader can be extremely harsh.Another major reason authoritarian leadership can suffer from in novation follows from its lack of feedback. Under the leadership style, leaders are not encouraged to engage or offer feedback to the same extent as in some of the other styles. This can mean employee development stall. Since the employee’s role is to simply perform the pre-determined tasks, there is no need for further improvement in many instances. The employee isn’t challenged or pushed to achieve more knowledge or look beyond his or her immediate role.Overall, the lack of employee satisfaction and development can lead to higher churn rate. As soon as the subordinate feels they’ve given everything they have to the organization and start feeling like there is no way forward, they are likely to start looking elsewhere for a new challenge. In essence, as the subordinates around the leader become more experienced, the harder it is for authoritarian style to work in maintaining loyalty and effectiveness.Even if you are an autocratic leader you should know how to build a feedback culture in your business. EXAMPLES OF FAMOUS AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSTo better understand the different aspects of the authoritarian leadership, you need to examine leaders who’ve shown these qualities and characteristics. When it comes to the authoritarian framework, the world of politics is naturally the first place to look.But not all authoritarian leaders have been dictators or politicians; as the above has shown, the leadership style can sometimes be a force for positive change in areas such as business.Below are five examples of authoritarian leaders, venturing a bit deeper into how they used the style to reach objectives.John F. KennedyJohn F. Kennedy’s time as the President of the United States was tragically cut short, but during his time in office, he managed to accomplish quite a bit. Kennedy’s leadership style is often described as charismatic or even transformational, but he also showcased plenty of authoritarian characteristics.The clearest example of his authorita rian trait was his sense of vision. He wasn’t afraid of directing all resources and focus towards the target he felt were the correct ones. Kennedy’s vision was to send a man to the moon and bring him back safely. Due to his authoritarian leadership style, he was able to direct the nation’s attention and focus on achieving this objective. The key to success was Kennedy’s ability to not only outline the vision, but to also lay out the path to getting there.Due to his charm, Kennedy was able to attract people around him and ensure they were inspired by his knowledge and vision. He had the ability to take people as they are, as well as stay truthful to his own personality. For good and for bad, Kennedy was a leader who wasn’t afraid to speak out. Although Kennedy held on to power and was eager to stay in control of decision-making, he used power in a subtle manner. He didn’t point out status differences or create conflict out of nothing.John F. Kennedy’s leadership style is evident in his famous quote:“Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.”Vladimir PutinAnother president who has shown authoritarian leadership qualities is the current head of Russia, Vladimir Putin. Putin’s authoritarian style stems from his background, as he is a former KGB agent. As mentioned above, military organizations often benefit from this type of clear hierarchy model and it’s apparent, Putin has adopted a similar style in his political career.The Russian leader also shares Kennedy’s trait of having a strong vision towards which he pushes the country. For Putin, the vision is to restore Russian hegemony on the global stage and to create a country that people can look up to. He has been able to concentrate much of the country’s decision-making into his own hands. Although the nation has democratic elections, many believe the decisions the parliament mak es come directly from Putin’s desk.Since Putin is leading one of the major military powers in the world, his authoritarian tendencies have clashed with the rest of the world. The stubborn nature of working towards the single objective shows the failings of the authoritarian style in a world where everyone might not agree with the vision. When authoritarian leadership encounters resistance, the results can be heightened conflict situations.Lorne MichaelsBut the authoritarian leaders don’t just exist in the world of politics. The traits and characteristics can be found in many other industry leaders, from the entertainment sector to the world of sports. One example is Lorne Michaels, an American creative producer. Michaels has launched the careers of comedians such as Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy.He’s known for being a demanding producer. But his demanding nature comes from his vision and his passion for turning talented individuals into top performers. If you consider the list of comedians, whose careers Michaels has helped kick off, you can see his vision is perfectly in tune with the American audience. He is able to understand what they want, how to get there, and then help the right people to execute the plan.Creative industries, such as comedy, are not necessarily something you would associate with an authoritarian leadership. Innovation is not often the strongest part of the framework, because it focuses so narrowly on executing a specific vision. But Michaels is an example that strong authority and focus doesn’t necessarily stifle creativity. His meticulous approach to creativity is evident in his quote,“To me there’s no creativity without boundaries. If you’re gonna write a sonnet, it’s 14 lines, so it’s solving the problem within the container.”In an interesting Harvard Business Review interview, Michaels laid out his leadership secrets, which showcase his authoritarian qualities. When asked about motivating his team, Michaels said:â €œYou lead by example. If people sense how committed you are, what the standard is, what you believe in, what you expect, they respond to that. And if they care as deeply as you do, it doesn’t take a motivational speech.”Larry EllisonFinally, the IT industry has also had its fair share of authoritarian leaders. The former chief executive of Oracle Larry Ellison is among them. Ellison has a reputation of being a bit of a swashbuckler and a risk-taker. He’s also a leader who has always had a clear vision of where he wants to be and he generally has wanted to be in control.Similar to all of the above examples, Ellison has always been a ‘what you see is what you get’-personality. Marc Benioff, an ex-Oracle executive, told Forbes,“He doesn’t hide anything. He says, ‘This is my nature, love me or hate me,’ and that’s it.”This creates a work atmosphere that can achieve benefits, such as Oracle’s success in controlling the Internet infrastructure business, but it can also be problematic when crisis arise. For example, in the summer of 2000, two big executives quit because Ellison didn’t want to let go of his leadership position.But authoritarian leaders can step out from rigid models as well. Oracle used to focus only on organic growth, because Ellison didn’t believe in the usability of acquisitions. But he later adjusted his vision on the topic, as he predicted the increase of consolidations within the technology industry. Oracle ventured into a series of high-profiled acquisitions and managed to solidify its position as the market leader as a result.FINAL THOUGHTSWhen people are thinking about what their nightmare boss would look like, the image of an authoritarian leader can pop up. The idea of a controlling leader, who is constantly looking over your shoulder and intimidating you with punishments, is a dreadful one. But authoritarian leader shouldn’t be automatically linked with this kind of behavior. Although the style tends to infli ct strict controls and close supervision, the framework doesn’t advocate it out of malicious thoughts. In fact, the assumptions the authoritarian leadership style tends to make from the subordinates can hold true in many instances.Furthermore, the style can help companies focus on efficiency and productivity. The swift decision-making and traditional hierarchy structure guarantees people are aware of the expectations they have and focus on the tasks. In essence, subordinates and the leader are able to perform the roles they are most suited to perform.Nonetheless, the style can lead to dissatisfaction and lack of innovation. It rests heavily on the capabilities of the leader and therefore, the organization can suffer if the leader is not able to reinvent and develop the vision and processes according to competition. Just as certain types of people might flourish under the style, the controlling nature can make some subordinates feel stifled and restricted. In order to make the styl e work, the leader must be aware of whether the organizations objectives and indeed the subordinates within the team are ready for the demanding leadership framework.

Is GMO Harmful or Beneficial to Us - Free Essay Example

Genetic engineering technology is the core of modern biotechnology. Since the birth of the first transgenic plant in the 1980s, genetic engineering has been rapidly and widely developed and applied in various fields. At the same time, genetic engineering has brought profound revolution to the field of food. Genetically modified food refers to the introduction and expression of exogenous genes into target organisms through gene recombination technology. The food produced in this way, including agricultural products and food additives, is collectively referred to as genetically modified food. The advantage of GMO is that it makes our life more convenient. At present, many people have questioned the toxicity of genetically modified foods, the problem of allergic reactions, nutritional problems, resistance to antibiotics, and environmental threats. Objectively speaking, every new thing has its growth process. We should treat it objectively and critically. In my opinion, we should look at genetically modified food scientifically, instead of just refusing it. GM foods can be broadly divided into three categories :(1) Gm plant foods. Such as genetically modified corn and soybean are more kinds of genetically modified food, mainly for improving the nutrition, anti-insect, anti-virus, anti-herbicide and anti-adversity survival of food, reducing the production cost and increasing quality of crops, and improving the yield per unit area. (2)Genetically modified animal food. Transgenic fish and meat, for example, it is mainly used for by introducing proper exogenous genes and modify its own to â€Å" reduce the degree of crosslinking of connective tissue† in order to improve the meat of animals and get a good flavor and nutritional value which meet the needs of the consumers.(3) genetically modified microbial food. For example, through genetic modification of the preparation of microbial fermentation, wine, beer, soy sauce, this kind of food is produced by the use of genetically modified organisms. Though there are always people spread th e idea that GMO is toxic but So far, there is no evidence can prove that genetically modified food will affect people’s health on short term at least. It will only affect oral argument. From 1998 to 2009 there was negative news about gm food. From the â€Å"approval in the United States of star alliance genetically modified corn for animal feeding†, to the â€Å"proliferation of weeds around genetically modified rape in Canada†, to the â€Å"contamination of other species genes by genetically modified corn in Mexico†, more and more facts have shown that the safety of genetically modified food deserves everyones attention. The organization for economic cooperation, the world health organization, and World food and agriculture organization (FAO),and other international authority said that the transgenic species may set a biological cause unintended consequences, it is this unintended consequences instructions for the safety of this product is not decided ye t, international consumer association also suggests that so far there is no evidence that genetically modified food is harmful or safe. There are indeed reports of GM food hazards, which are not repeated in this article. We only analyze the advantages of genetically modified foods. Genetically modified food brings us benefits indeed. Increase crop yield, solve the problem of food shortages, reduce environmental pollution. One of reason the crops failed is Salt, drought, pests and diseases, which is also responsible for yield production. Nowadays, scientists combine a variety of anti insect, drought and salt tolerance genes into crops by the development of genetic and DNA technology. By getting excellent properties of the new strain of genetically modified (gm), it greatly reduces the production cost and increases the production at the same time. Many scientists expected to use genetic modified to solve the problem of food shortages all around the world with the booming of population. At the same time, the environmental pollution due to pesticide or fertilizer can be reduced hugely by the application of transgenic technology such as hybrid rice. Extend the life of fruit and vegetable products. Traditional vegetable and fruit preservation techniques, such as refrigeration, coatings, preservation, storage costs with severe defects, time, and freshness preservation, often result in softening, over-ripening, decay, and deterioration, causing heavy losses. The direct production of shelf-stable fruits and vegetables has become a reality through genetic engineering techniques. For example, adding an anti-freeze gene for marine fish grown in the Arctic to an ordinary eggplant will allow it to be stored longer in the winter and greatly extend the shelf life. At present, commercial and transgenic tomato storage has been produced at home and abroad. Related research has been extended to strawberries, bananas, mangoes, peaches, and watermelons. Improve the taste and quality of food. In order to change the taste and extend the shelf life of the food, food company may add additives illegally to make sure the food â€Å"looks good†. However, additives and preservatives sometimes contain harmful ingredients which most of the leads to cancer. Genetic modified food can solve the problems better. The taste of food, nutrition and bactericidal properties change or transfer some of the characteristics of certain genes. Take milk as an example, gene replacement technology can change the specific the composition of milk and increase milk production. Furthermore, in order to provide plants food for some animal nutrition and taste, scientists also transfer animal genes to these plants which give them some special characteristics. Thus, Transgenic technology could improve the quality of the animal food and give human a new aspects of knowing things. And att present, the transgenic fish, chicken and pig research have made great success. Use genetically modified technology to produce foods that are good for health and disease resistance. The newly developed genetically modified rice from European scientists is found to be rich in vitamin A and iron, which helps to reduce iron deficiency anemia and vitamin A. Incidence rate. And another Japanese scientists have successfully cultivated new rice that can lower serum cholesterol levels, reduce the possibility of arteriosclerosis by using genetically modified technology. In conclusion, GMO bring us lots of benefits. Without this benefit, we cannot imagine how will the world be. There is indeed some negative news about genetically modified foods. But this does not justify our refusal to use GM food. Everyone has their own right to choose. In Africa, people often try their best to supply food, and genetically modified foods can greatly increase the production of food and allow more people to live. Since humans can develop genetically modified foods, it is believed that humans can gradually discover the potential dangers of genetically modified foods in the future, modify and improve these shortcomings, and make them safer and healthier. People should take a scientific view of genetically modified foods, maintain an optimistic attitude towards genetically modified foods, and conduct in-depth research on genetically modified foods. This will allow genetic technology to perform its best. References: Feuillet, Catherine. â€Å"Figure 2f from: Irimia R, Gottschling M (2016) Taxonomic Revision of Rochefortia Sw. (Ehretiaceae, Boraginales). Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e7720. Https://Doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.4.e7720.† doi:10.3897/bdj.4.e7720.figure2f. Huso, et al. â€Å"IMPACTS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) TRAITS ON CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES.† AgEcon Search, ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/23491?ln=en. Bredahl, L. Journal of Consumer Policy (2001) 24: 23. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010950406128 Suzie Key, Julian K-C Ma, and Pascal MW Drake, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Vol 101, Issue 6, pp. 290 29, June 2008, https://doi.org/10.1258%2Fjrsm.2008.070372 Charu Verma, Surabhi Nanda, R. K. Singh, R. B. Singh, Sanjay Mishra. A Review on Impacts of Genetically Modified Food on Human Health. The open nutraceutical journals, 2011, 4: 3-11,https://benthamopen.com/TONUTRAJ/home/ Maclean, Norman (2003) Genetically modified fish and their effects on food quality and human health and nutrition. Trends in Food Science Technology, April 2003