Sunday, May 24, 2020

Symbolism and Sexism in Ibsen’s “a Doll’s House” Essays

ENGL 2337 April 15, 2010 Symbolism and Sexism in Ibsen’s â€Å"A Doll’s House† Henrik Ibsen, the author of the controversial play â€Å"A Doll’s House† said, â€Å"There are two kinds of moral laws, two kinds of conscience, one for men and one, quite different, for women. They don’t understand each other; but in practical life, woman is judged by masculine law, as though she weren’t a woman but a man†¦A woman cannot be herself in modern society.† Isben created the plot of â€Å"A Doll’s House† from those ideas. Ibsen was viewed by his contemporaries as a moral and social revolutionary who advocated female emancipation and intellectual freedom. He believed that freedom must come†¦show more content†¦Since Nora’s father was dying, she was forced to forge his signature in order to secure a loan that would eventually save her husband’s life, which only led to more problems in the future because in order for her to be able to repay the money she must lie about how she spends her household accounts and also lie about taking odd jobs to earn extra money. Also, the way Torvald treats Nora in the play depicts the way women were treated in the nineteenth century. For example, In Act I, Nora is little more than a child playing a role. She is a â€Å"doll† occupying a doll’s house, a child who has exchanged a father for a husband without changing or maturing in any way. Torvald treats his wife literally like a doll, calling her pet names and occasionally scolding her as if she were a child. His primary interests are his new job as a bank manager and his social standing. When he learns that his wife is involved in a legal problem that would embarrass him if it became known to the public, he reveals who he really is. He comes off as a hypocrite preoccupied with his own welfare. Also, Torvald says that Nora is now his property which is when Nora realizes she is much too good for him. Nora then decides to leave because they have been married for eight years and h as suffered enough injustice from both her father and Torvald. Nora explains to Torvald that she has been merry, not happy, being with him. She explained to him howShow MoreRelatedA Dolls House Feminism Essay1292 Words   |  6 Pagesistory has shown that prejudice has existed for a long time; progresses have been made for the better but in past years the existing prejudice was a societal norm. There are obvious types of sexism and issues which affect gender rights, but more delicate and inconspicuous elements are often swept under the rug as issues which do not need to be changed, as they are ‘tradition’. Marriages are often the subject of controversy regarding gender rights because of their grey area regarding gender roles

Wednesday, May 13, 2020

Reflective Assignment - Motivation - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1457 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Marketing Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? A critical theoretical and visual analysis of my experience of work Within this assignment I will show a critical, theoretical and visual analysis of my work within a night club (OMG Bristol); I have currently worked there 7 months. Work is defined by (Fineman et al, 2010) as â€Å"somewhere you undertake a physical or mental activity in order to achieve a result†. The two topics I have chosen to asses are motivation and also emotions. In relation to motivation I will be assessing Hertzberg’s (1966) theory about motivational and hygiene factors; also in relation to emotions looking at a Hochschild’s (1983) social constructionist theory. The image of motivation with the sign relates to motivation within the workplace, and is relevant for my explanation of Hertzberg’s two factor theory (1996). Also the image of the faces represents emotions, and aesthetic labour in the work place. Motivation: â€Å"Motivation is an internal forc e, dependant on the needs that drive a person to achieve† (Schulze and Steyn, 2003) Hertzberg’s (1996) theory centres around two main factors, the first being motivating factors and the second relating to hygiene factors. Motivating factors focus around the job content; such as recognition, responsibility and the work itself – this can lead to high levels of satisfaction within the job role, and see an increase in motivation. Whether its self-motivation or team-motivation. Secondly considering hygiene factors, which are considered in an organisational context, these include factors such as working conditions, pay, company policy and supervisory style – these factors can remove dissatisfaction but don’t contribute to motivation. To put this theory into context, the motivation factors are what managers must focus on to give employee’s job satisfaction and to motivate employees. Whereas hygiene factors are necessary to prevent employees being dissatisfied in the workplace – the motivators are there to motivate employees providing the hygiene factors have been taken into consideration. By not considering the hygiene factors it could cause dissatisfaction at work†¦ because hygiene factors are not direct motivators. When relating Hertzberg’s two factor theory to my personal experience, the first point to be considered is that within my current employment at OMG, there are motivating factors – the main one is the responsibility given by the company to its staff, to serve alcohol responsibly and follow the legislation implemented by the government, such as the sale of alcohol to persons under 18 is illegal. Also recognition and advancement, where if a person excels at their work they could be offered a promotion to assistant manager, then when a new venue opens are running their own night club. Because of these factors, they motivate me to do more, become available when-ever needed because of the possibility of advancement through the company, achieved by putting in more time and effort, motivating me. Secondly to be considered is the hygiene factors of OMG, such as pay; because the company pays minimum wage, this can substantially impact on my motivation to work long night shifts, whilst juggling work, university and a social life. Also the security of the venue and working conditions are a factor in my job satisfaction, knowing that I am safe because of door security and the working conditions are manageable; but sometimes when working in a cold room (e.g. cloakroom) this actually causes my job dissatisfaction. Although sometimes the supervisory style may not be a hygiene factor, and more of a motivator, when we receive recognition, this may vary depending on supervisor. The hygiene factors don’t add to my personal motivation, but merely remove the job dissatisfaction; this can vary depending on the degree of the situation. To conclude on motivation, I personally believe that some of the motivators and hygiene factors can vary, because within Hertzberg’s research he conducted, it was only on 200 engineers; therefore I believe it can vary depending on the industry. This is reinforced by (Noel, 1976) who states there is much debate on how to distinguish between hygiene and motivational factors. Another example is (Nave, 1968) who states that â€Å"the differences are due to the intensity of the labour requirement and the duration of employment† So peoples motivation may change dependant on how labour intensive the job role is and the duration of that person’s employment. The theory of Hertzberg is proven ambiguous as to whether or not factors are hygiene or motivational, it is dependent on each person’s perspective. Emotion: Emotional labour is defined as â€Å"a form of emotion regulation that creates a publicly visible facial and bodily display within the workplace† (Hochschild, 1983) Ac cording to Hochschild there are three types of emotions; the first being cognitive, this revolves around the idea that a person can change their thoughts, feelings and ideas – in doing so they can change their feelings associated. Secondly considering bodily emotions, these centres around the idea that a person can change the way they behave physically, and by doing so can create the desired emotion. Lastly is expressive emotion, which relates to when a person attempts to change their expressions to change how they feel inside. An example of this is when a person tries to laugh when trying to change their emotion to feel happier. Hochschild (1983) defines jobs involving emotions and emotional labour as thoughts that require, face-to-face or voice-to-voice contact with customers – or require the worked to produce an emotional state within another person. Also that allows the employer, through training and supervision, to exercise a degree of control over the emotiona l activities of employers (Hochschild, 1983). During his theory it’s argued that the commodification process service workers become estranged from their own personal feeling within the workplace. The display of emotion is the single and most important factor when working in a bar setting, because if I am happy and enjoying my job then the atmosphere when people walk into the venue is positive. This can substantially impact on the sales for the night if people show negative emotion, through arguing or disagreeing with customers. Even showing my tiredness because of the long night hours, or talking about negative about customers or events. When relating the theory to my personal experience at OMG Bristol, it is apparently clear that because the role is labor intensive and required not only face to face contact but also voice to voice. Therefore this can substantially have an impact on the way a person perceives their emotions within the workplace. Personally we are traine d like in the army, always having the same phrase repeated†¦ â€Å"The customer is always right†, because of this you must always try and keep the customer happy. Within the line of work I do, there is always someone watching over you, whether it’s on the CCTV or in person. So the way I act must be correct at all times†¦ therefore it can be difficult to distinguish what I am actually feeling, and the emotion I am displaying, whether it be cognitive, bodily or expressive. When looking at the criticisms of this theory, I believe that the emotional labor requirements could be more alienating for employees, because it takes away their individuality, and doesn’t let their personality show. Because of this its like there are all the same, even though it shows consistencies it doesn’t allow the employees chance to be themselves. The job role doesn’t involve doing the job efficiently, but also ensuring that the employee doesn’t act i n a certain way and must follow the guide-lines of the company. So to conclude on my criticisms of this theory, I believe that the emotional labor changes depending on the industry, airlines may have different emotional requirements, compared to industries such as bar tending and night club work. Because of this the overall theory is subject to the individual industry. Also the control managers have on their employees can cause increased stress levels and make the work more strenuous because employees are always adjusting their emotions to fit the needs of the organisation. This is what I have interpreted according to Hochschild’s theory (1983). References: Bassett-Jones, Nigel, and Geoffrey C. Lloyd. Does Herzbergs motivation theory have staying power?. Journal of management Development 24.10 (2005): 929-943. Entwistle, Noel. Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning. Learning strategies and learning styles. Springer US, 1988. 21-51. Hoch schild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hochschild, Arlie (1983). â€Å"The Managed Heart†. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. ISBN9780520239333. Schulze, Salomà ©, and G. M. Steyn. Educators motivation: Differences related to gender, age and experience. ACTA ACADEMICA-UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE 35.3 (2003): 138-160. Teck-Hong, Tan, and Amna Waheed. HERZBERGS MOTIVATION-HYGIENE THEORY AND JOB SATISFACTION IN THE MALAYSIAN RETAIL SECTOR: THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF LOVE OF MONEY. Asian Academy of Management Journal 16.1 (2011). Word Count: 1,318 Student Number: 13021444 Name: Jordan Levi Saile Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Reflective Assignment Motivation" essay for you Create order

Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Revisiting the Juvenile Offenders in Adult Criminal Justice System Free Essays

The statistics are striking. In 2002 alone, one in twelve murders in the U. S. We will write a custom essay sample on Revisiting the Juvenile Offenders in Adult Criminal Justice System or any similar topic only for you Order Now involved a juvenile offender (Snyder and Sickmund p. 65). Half of high school seniors (51%) surveyed in 2003 said they had tried illicit drugs at least once (Snyder and Sickmund p. 75). About 9% of murders in the U. S. were committed by youth under 18 in 2000 and an estimated 1561 youth under the age of 18 were arrested for homicide in 2000 (Fox). Youth under 18 accounted for about 15% of violent crime arrests in 2001 (FBI). One national survey found that for every teen arrested, at least 10 were engaged in violence that could have seriously injured or killed another person. (US Dept. of Health and Human Services). The alarming numbers continue but leave a question mark on the propensity and effectiveness of existing US juvenile laws, pushing for an inclination towards adopting adult justice systems in youth offender cases. Yet, alongside these figures are far more alarming statistics. While juvenile crimes are persistent, it is also true that one of every four violent crime victims known to law enforcement is a juvenile (Snyder and Sickmund p. 31). Suicide is the third leading cause of death among teenagers. In fact, 1921 young people ages 10 to 19 died by suicide in the United States in 2000 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). In fact, about 1 in 11 high-school students say they have made a suicide attempt in 1999(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention p. 6). And, officials have reported that of the more than 2,800 sexual violence allegations in juvenile facilities in 2004, 3 in 10 were substantiated (Snyder and Sickmund p. 230). A juvenile offender is one who is considered too young to be tried as an adult. Typically, the age at which a person can be tried as an adult varies among states, but ordinarily, it is the age of seventeen or eighteen, although this age can go down for certain serious offenses, such as homicide or sexual assault (Larson). When charged with a criminal offense, a juvenile is sent to a juvenile court where he may either waive his right and be tried under adult criminal systems. Ideally and ordinarily, the focus is on what will rehabilitate the juvenile, rather than on punishment. For juvenile offenses, the juvenile are often said to have committed a â€Å"delinquent act,† as opposed to a â€Å"criminal offense. † (Larson). Although the juvenile court has broad discretion to tailor a sentence to the needs of a young offender this juveniles are still sentenced to prison. In fact, many states have large juvenile prisons and treatment facilities. The principle is that that the present criminal justice system believes that some juvenile offenders are very dangerous, despite their age, that incarceration seemed to be appropriate. While most of the policymakers and the press claim that an increase in the youth population shall also result in the rate of juvenile offenses, a lot of considerations need to be addressed. Justifications, as will be discussed later, however, boil down to one conclusion- when a juvenile commits an adult crime, he should not be required to face the consequences as an adult. In an effort to derive justifications why youth offenders should not be tried under adult criminal justice systems, several propositions are laid out below based on recent studies: 1. Youth are developmentally different from adults; 2. Incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails is dangerous to the juvenile offenders; 3. Youth incarceration in adult jails does not reduce crime rate; 4. Trying juvenile offenders and imposing death penalty to youth offenders is unconstitutional. These are discussed in detail in the following sections. Youth are developmentally different from adults The basic principle of equality of rights is commonly understood to mean that persons who are similarly situated shall be treated the same under the law. A close analysis of adult and youth offender profiles however suggests that adult and youth criminal offenders are not similarly situated so much so that existing adult justice systems should be liberally applied if not totally abolished as against juvenile offenders. Psychologists and lawyers have raised significant and recent studies in the juvenile brain in reconsidering the existing juvenile laws. An issue in point is whether a teenager who commits capital offenses can be executed or whether this would be cruel and unusual punishment, banned by the Constitution’s eighth amendment. The point is, adolescents are not morally culpable as adults because their brains are not as capable of impulse control, decision-making, and reasoning as adult brains are. Psychologists say that this is because the brain’s frontal lobe, which exercises restraint over impulsive behavior, â€Å"doesn’t begin to mature until 17 years of age,† says neuroscientist Ruben Gur of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. â€Å"The very part of the brain that is judged by the legal system process comes on board late. † Other than this, adults behave differently not just because they have different brain structures, but because they use the structures in a different way ( Beckman ). Because of these social and biological reasons, an article in Times Magazine read, â€Å"teens have increased difficulty making mature decisions and understanding the consequences of their actions. † With much of these studies leaning towards the immediate fact that juveniles are not as mentally developed as the adult offenders, it is but proper that minors should never be tried as adults and should be spared the death penalty. Incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails is dangerous to the juvenile offenders It is a fact that despite a federal law preventing juveniles from adult jails existing for over three decades, 7,500 youth are in adult jails, according to a report released by the Campaign for Youth Justice. It must be reconsidered that rather than rehabilitating the youth offenders, incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails poses more danger to the juvenile. In fact, they are exposed to these dangers even before they’ve had their day in court (Campaign for Youth Justice). Incarceration exposes the youthful offender to sexual assault. Officials reported that of more than 2,800 sexual violence allegations in juvenile facilities in 2004, 3 in 10 were substantiated with girls more likely than boys to be sexually victimized (Snyder and Sickmund p. 229). In 2005, 21% of all substantiated victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence were under eighteen years old, even though youth make up less than 1% of the total jail population (Campaign for Youth Justice). Likewise, incarceration in adult are at greater risk of suicide than similar youth in theU. S. population (Snyder and Sickmund p. 229). In fact, youth have the highest suicide rates of all inmates in jails. â€Å"They are 36 times more likely to commit suicide in an adult jail than in a juvenile detention facility, and 19 times more likely to commit suicide in an adult jail than youth in the general population† (Campaign for Youth Justice). Finally, jailing juveniles in adult facilities are counterproductive and even increases their likelihood of reoffending. Based on studies, children who are prosecuted in adult court are more likely to be rearrested more often and more quickly for serious offenses(Campaign for Youth Justice). Youth incarceration in adult jails does not reduce crime rate While it is true that juvenile population in the US is increasing similarly to other segments of the population such that population projections indicate that the juvenile proportion of the U. S. population will hold constant through 2050 (Snyder and Sickmund p. 2), it is not true that this increase would also result in the increase in juvenile crime rate. In an analysis conducted based on official crime statistics of youth offenders in California from 1970 to 1998, Macallair and Males said that â€Å"the popular claim that the rising teenage population means more crime and violence is a myth† (2000). According to them, the current crime trends among youths are indication of declining crime rates into the next century and suggest a reevaluation of current trends in youth crime policies and reexamination of popular assumptions based on these statistics. Death penalty to juvenile crimes is unconstitutional The truth of the matter is that all states in the US now allow certain juveniles to be tried in criminal court or otherwise face adult sanctions (Snyder and Sickmund p. 110). More over, the federal consititutionality of the American juvenile death penalty was a reasonably settled issue for the past 15 years. This is a serious matter that poses more danger to juvenile offenders in facing adult consequences. It is a good thing however, that the United States Supreme Court has now expressed a renewed interest in reconsidering this issue with state courts getting more involved as well. In Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that â€Å"executions of offenders age 15 and younger at the time of their crimes are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution† (Death Penalty Information Center). In Simmons v. Roper, 112 S. W. 3d 397 (Mo. 2003), the Supreme Court of Missouri interpreted current national data to hold that the death penalty for juvenile offenders now violates the United States Constitution’s prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment. They however did not reach the issue under the Missouri State Constitution. Although a ruling on federal constitutionality, Simmons applies only in Missouri at this juncture. In the meantime, the two prevailing issues before the Supreme Court is whether the lower court can subsequently reinterpret and reject the standards under evolving standards of decency once the United States Supreme Court sets the Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual standard and whether death penalty for a 17-year-old offender is now Cruel and Unusual under the Eighth Amendment’s evolving standard of decency (Death Penalty Information Center). In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court (5-4) upheld the Missouri Supreme Court and banned the death penalty for juvenile offenders, Roper v. Simmons (2005). With this as precedence, it is but due time for states to also reconsider the adverse consequences of juvenile commitment in adult prisons. Conclusion With all the issues raised above, it is but appalling why juvenile offenders should be tried under adult criminal justice systems. It is but due time that existing state policies be revisited and amended to adjust to the need of youthful offenders. In the meantime, since the present state policies on juvenile offenders are already in place, it is only but fitting to reconsider some adjustments in existing policies if at least to address and prevent these dangers until such time that the federal and state systems are ready for the new, more effective and revitalized policies. In referring to the special circumstance of juvenile offenders, the following recommendations were given in an ABA Task Force Report in 2001: †¢ Since youth are developmentally different from adults, these developmental differences need to be taken into account at all stages and in all aspects of the adult criminal justice system. †¢ Pretrial release or detention decisions regarding youth awaiting trial in adult criminal court should reflect their special characteristics. †¢ If detained or incarcerated, youth in the adult criminal justice system should be housed in institutions or facilities separate from adult facilities until at least their eighteenth birthday. †¢ Youth detained or incarcerated in the adult criminal justice system should be provided programs which address their educational, treatment, health, mental health, and vocational needs. †¢ The right to counsel in the adult criminal justice system should not be waived by a youth without consultation with a lawyer and without a full inquiry into the youth’s comprehension of the right and capacity to make the choice intelligently, voluntarily and understandingly. If the right to counsel is voluntarily waived, stand-by counsel should always be appointed. †¢ Judges in the adult criminal justice system should consider the individual characteristics of the youth during sentencing. †¢ The collateral consequences normally attendant to the adult criminal justice process should not necessarily apply to all youth arrested for crimes committed before the age of eighteen. (ABA p. 2) In sum, trying youth offenders under the adult criminal justice system â€Å"is not safe, is not fair and does not work† (Youth for Justice p. 4) and should therefore be guarded against. Rather than considering the youth as vices of the community, they should be looked upon as needing of society’s support. Works Cited Beckman, Mary. â€Å"Crime, Culpability and the Adolescent Brain. † Death Penalty Information Center. 30 July 2004. Science Magazine. 10 March 2008. http://www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/article. php? scid=17did=1112 â€Å"7,500 Youth in Adult Jails: Report, Young People at Risk of Assault, Suicide; Frequently Held Pre-Trial. † Campaign for Youth Justice. Press Release. 11 March 2008. http://www. campaignforyouthjustice. org/national_reports. html. â€Å"Crime in the United States 2001. † Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2002. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Table 41. 12 March 2008. http://www. fbi. gov/ucr/cius_01/01crime. pdf. â€Å"Data Source: NCHS National Vital Statistics System for numbers of deaths, U. S. Bureau of Census for population estimates. Statistics compiled using WISQARSTM produced by the Office of Statistics and Programming, NCIPC, CDC. † Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 10 March 2008. http://www. cdc. gov/ncipc/osp/data. htm. Fox, James Alan. , Zawitz, Marianne W. â€Å"Homicide Trends in the United States. † US Department of Justice. 2002. Northeastern University and Bureau of Justice Statistics. 11 March 2008. http://www. ojp. usdoj. gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd. htm. Larson, Aaron. â€Å"Juvenile Offenders. † LawExperts. March 2000. 10 March 2008. (http://www. expertlaw. com/library/criminal/juvenile_law. html). Snyder, Howard N. , and Sickmund, Melissa. â€Å"Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. † Death Penalty Information Center. 2006. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 11 March 2008 (http://www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/article. php? did=204scid=27). Wallis, Claudia and Dell, Kristina. â€Å"What Makes Teens Tick; A flood of hormones, sure. But also a host of structural changes in the brain. Can those explain the behaviors that make adolescence so exciting–and so exasperating? † Death Penalty Information Center. 10 May 2004. Time Magazine. 10 March 2008. http://www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/article. php? scid=27did=977. â€Å"Youth in the Criminal Justice System: An ABA Task Force Report. † American Bar Association. February 2002. Criminal Justice Section. 9 March 2008. http://www. abanet. org/crimjust/juvjus/jjpolicies/YCJSReport. pdf â€Å"Youth risk behavior surveillance – United States, 2001. † Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries. June 28, 2002. MMWR, 51(SS-4), p. 6. 10 March 2008. http://www. cdc. gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5104a1. htm. â€Å"Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Executive Summary. † U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. p. vii. Comparison of data from the Monitoring the Future Study from the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research and data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program. 11 March 2008. http://www. surgeongeneral. gov/library/youthviolence/summary. htm. How to cite Revisiting the Juvenile Offenders in Adult Criminal Justice System, Papers

Revisiting the Juvenile Offenders in Adult Criminal Justice System Free Essays

The statistics are striking. In 2002 alone, one in twelve murders in the U. S. We will write a custom essay sample on Revisiting the Juvenile Offenders in Adult Criminal Justice System or any similar topic only for you Order Now involved a juvenile offender (Snyder and Sickmund p. 65). Half of high school seniors (51%) surveyed in 2003 said they had tried illicit drugs at least once (Snyder and Sickmund p. 75). About 9% of murders in the U. S. were committed by youth under 18 in 2000 and an estimated 1561 youth under the age of 18 were arrested for homicide in 2000 (Fox). Youth under 18 accounted for about 15% of violent crime arrests in 2001 (FBI). One national survey found that for every teen arrested, at least 10 were engaged in violence that could have seriously injured or killed another person. (US Dept. of Health and Human Services). The alarming numbers continue but leave a question mark on the propensity and effectiveness of existing US juvenile laws, pushing for an inclination towards adopting adult justice systems in youth offender cases. Yet, alongside these figures are far more alarming statistics. While juvenile crimes are persistent, it is also true that one of every four violent crime victims known to law enforcement is a juvenile (Snyder and Sickmund p. 31). Suicide is the third leading cause of death among teenagers. In fact, 1921 young people ages 10 to 19 died by suicide in the United States in 2000 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). In fact, about 1 in 11 high-school students say they have made a suicide attempt in 1999(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention p. 6). And, officials have reported that of the more than 2,800 sexual violence allegations in juvenile facilities in 2004, 3 in 10 were substantiated (Snyder and Sickmund p. 230). A juvenile offender is one who is considered too young to be tried as an adult. Typically, the age at which a person can be tried as an adult varies among states, but ordinarily, it is the age of seventeen or eighteen, although this age can go down for certain serious offenses, such as homicide or sexual assault (Larson). When charged with a criminal offense, a juvenile is sent to a juvenile court where he may either waive his right and be tried under adult criminal systems. Ideally and ordinarily, the focus is on what will rehabilitate the juvenile, rather than on punishment. For juvenile offenses, the juvenile are often said to have committed a â€Å"delinquent act,† as opposed to a â€Å"criminal offense. † (Larson). Although the juvenile court has broad discretion to tailor a sentence to the needs of a young offender this juveniles are still sentenced to prison. In fact, many states have large juvenile prisons and treatment facilities. The principle is that that the present criminal justice system believes that some juvenile offenders are very dangerous, despite their age, that incarceration seemed to be appropriate. While most of the policymakers and the press claim that an increase in the youth population shall also result in the rate of juvenile offenses, a lot of considerations need to be addressed. Justifications, as will be discussed later, however, boil down to one conclusion- when a juvenile commits an adult crime, he should not be required to face the consequences as an adult. In an effort to derive justifications why youth offenders should not be tried under adult criminal justice systems, several propositions are laid out below based on recent studies: 1. Youth are developmentally different from adults; 2. Incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails is dangerous to the juvenile offenders; 3. Youth incarceration in adult jails does not reduce crime rate; 4. Trying juvenile offenders and imposing death penalty to youth offenders is unconstitutional. These are discussed in detail in the following sections. Youth are developmentally different from adults The basic principle of equality of rights is commonly understood to mean that persons who are similarly situated shall be treated the same under the law. A close analysis of adult and youth offender profiles however suggests that adult and youth criminal offenders are not similarly situated so much so that existing adult justice systems should be liberally applied if not totally abolished as against juvenile offenders. Psychologists and lawyers have raised significant and recent studies in the juvenile brain in reconsidering the existing juvenile laws. An issue in point is whether a teenager who commits capital offenses can be executed or whether this would be cruel and unusual punishment, banned by the Constitution’s eighth amendment. The point is, adolescents are not morally culpable as adults because their brains are not as capable of impulse control, decision-making, and reasoning as adult brains are. Psychologists say that this is because the brain’s frontal lobe, which exercises restraint over impulsive behavior, â€Å"doesn’t begin to mature until 17 years of age,† says neuroscientist Ruben Gur of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. â€Å"The very part of the brain that is judged by the legal system process comes on board late. † Other than this, adults behave differently not just because they have different brain structures, but because they use the structures in a different way ( Beckman ). Because of these social and biological reasons, an article in Times Magazine read, â€Å"teens have increased difficulty making mature decisions and understanding the consequences of their actions. † With much of these studies leaning towards the immediate fact that juveniles are not as mentally developed as the adult offenders, it is but proper that minors should never be tried as adults and should be spared the death penalty. Incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails is dangerous to the juvenile offenders It is a fact that despite a federal law preventing juveniles from adult jails existing for over three decades, 7,500 youth are in adult jails, according to a report released by the Campaign for Youth Justice. It must be reconsidered that rather than rehabilitating the youth offenders, incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails poses more danger to the juvenile. In fact, they are exposed to these dangers even before they’ve had their day in court (Campaign for Youth Justice). Incarceration exposes the youthful offender to sexual assault. Officials reported that of more than 2,800 sexual violence allegations in juvenile facilities in 2004, 3 in 10 were substantiated with girls more likely than boys to be sexually victimized (Snyder and Sickmund p. 229). In 2005, 21% of all substantiated victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence were under eighteen years old, even though youth make up less than 1% of the total jail population (Campaign for Youth Justice). Likewise, incarceration in adult are at greater risk of suicide than similar youth in theU. S. population (Snyder and Sickmund p. 229). In fact, youth have the highest suicide rates of all inmates in jails. â€Å"They are 36 times more likely to commit suicide in an adult jail than in a juvenile detention facility, and 19 times more likely to commit suicide in an adult jail than youth in the general population† (Campaign for Youth Justice). Finally, jailing juveniles in adult facilities are counterproductive and even increases their likelihood of reoffending. Based on studies, children who are prosecuted in adult court are more likely to be rearrested more often and more quickly for serious offenses(Campaign for Youth Justice). Youth incarceration in adult jails does not reduce crime rate While it is true that juvenile population in the US is increasing similarly to other segments of the population such that population projections indicate that the juvenile proportion of the U. S. population will hold constant through 2050 (Snyder and Sickmund p. 2), it is not true that this increase would also result in the increase in juvenile crime rate. In an analysis conducted based on official crime statistics of youth offenders in California from 1970 to 1998, Macallair and Males said that â€Å"the popular claim that the rising teenage population means more crime and violence is a myth† (2000). According to them, the current crime trends among youths are indication of declining crime rates into the next century and suggest a reevaluation of current trends in youth crime policies and reexamination of popular assumptions based on these statistics. Death penalty to juvenile crimes is unconstitutional The truth of the matter is that all states in the US now allow certain juveniles to be tried in criminal court or otherwise face adult sanctions (Snyder and Sickmund p. 110). More over, the federal consititutionality of the American juvenile death penalty was a reasonably settled issue for the past 15 years. This is a serious matter that poses more danger to juvenile offenders in facing adult consequences. It is a good thing however, that the United States Supreme Court has now expressed a renewed interest in reconsidering this issue with state courts getting more involved as well. In Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that â€Å"executions of offenders age 15 and younger at the time of their crimes are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution† (Death Penalty Information Center). In Simmons v. Roper, 112 S. W. 3d 397 (Mo. 2003), the Supreme Court of Missouri interpreted current national data to hold that the death penalty for juvenile offenders now violates the United States Constitution’s prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment. They however did not reach the issue under the Missouri State Constitution. Although a ruling on federal constitutionality, Simmons applies only in Missouri at this juncture. In the meantime, the two prevailing issues before the Supreme Court is whether the lower court can subsequently reinterpret and reject the standards under evolving standards of decency once the United States Supreme Court sets the Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual standard and whether death penalty for a 17-year-old offender is now Cruel and Unusual under the Eighth Amendment’s evolving standard of decency (Death Penalty Information Center). In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court (5-4) upheld the Missouri Supreme Court and banned the death penalty for juvenile offenders, Roper v. Simmons (2005). With this as precedence, it is but due time for states to also reconsider the adverse consequences of juvenile commitment in adult prisons. Conclusion With all the issues raised above, it is but appalling why juvenile offenders should be tried under adult criminal justice systems. It is but due time that existing state policies be revisited and amended to adjust to the need of youthful offenders. In the meantime, since the present state policies on juvenile offenders are already in place, it is only but fitting to reconsider some adjustments in existing policies if at least to address and prevent these dangers until such time that the federal and state systems are ready for the new, more effective and revitalized policies. In referring to the special circumstance of juvenile offenders, the following recommendations were given in an ABA Task Force Report in 2001: †¢ Since youth are developmentally different from adults, these developmental differences need to be taken into account at all stages and in all aspects of the adult criminal justice system. †¢ Pretrial release or detention decisions regarding youth awaiting trial in adult criminal court should reflect their special characteristics. †¢ If detained or incarcerated, youth in the adult criminal justice system should be housed in institutions or facilities separate from adult facilities until at least their eighteenth birthday. †¢ Youth detained or incarcerated in the adult criminal justice system should be provided programs which address their educational, treatment, health, mental health, and vocational needs. †¢ The right to counsel in the adult criminal justice system should not be waived by a youth without consultation with a lawyer and without a full inquiry into the youth’s comprehension of the right and capacity to make the choice intelligently, voluntarily and understandingly. If the right to counsel is voluntarily waived, stand-by counsel should always be appointed. †¢ Judges in the adult criminal justice system should consider the individual characteristics of the youth during sentencing. †¢ The collateral consequences normally attendant to the adult criminal justice process should not necessarily apply to all youth arrested for crimes committed before the age of eighteen. (ABA p. 2) In sum, trying youth offenders under the adult criminal justice system â€Å"is not safe, is not fair and does not work† (Youth for Justice p. 4) and should therefore be guarded against. Rather than considering the youth as vices of the community, they should be looked upon as needing of society’s support. Works Cited Beckman, Mary. â€Å"Crime, Culpability and the Adolescent Brain. † Death Penalty Information Center. 30 July 2004. Science Magazine. 10 March 2008. http://www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/article. php? scid=17did=1112 â€Å"7,500 Youth in Adult Jails: Report, Young People at Risk of Assault, Suicide; Frequently Held Pre-Trial. † Campaign for Youth Justice. Press Release. 11 March 2008. http://www. campaignforyouthjustice. org/national_reports. html. â€Å"Crime in the United States 2001. † Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2002. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Table 41. 12 March 2008. http://www. fbi. gov/ucr/cius_01/01crime. pdf. â€Å"Data Source: NCHS National Vital Statistics System for numbers of deaths, U. S. Bureau of Census for population estimates. Statistics compiled using WISQARSTM produced by the Office of Statistics and Programming, NCIPC, CDC. † Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 10 March 2008. http://www. cdc. gov/ncipc/osp/data. htm. Fox, James Alan. , Zawitz, Marianne W. â€Å"Homicide Trends in the United States. † US Department of Justice. 2002. Northeastern University and Bureau of Justice Statistics. 11 March 2008. http://www. ojp. usdoj. gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd. htm. Larson, Aaron. â€Å"Juvenile Offenders. † LawExperts. March 2000. 10 March 2008. (http://www. expertlaw. com/library/criminal/juvenile_law. html). Snyder, Howard N. , and Sickmund, Melissa. â€Å"Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. † Death Penalty Information Center. 2006. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 11 March 2008 (http://www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/article. php? did=204scid=27). Wallis, Claudia and Dell, Kristina. â€Å"What Makes Teens Tick; A flood of hormones, sure. But also a host of structural changes in the brain. Can those explain the behaviors that make adolescence so exciting–and so exasperating? † Death Penalty Information Center. 10 May 2004. Time Magazine. 10 March 2008. http://www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/article. php? scid=27did=977. â€Å"Youth in the Criminal Justice System: An ABA Task Force Report. † American Bar Association. February 2002. Criminal Justice Section. 9 March 2008. http://www. abanet. org/crimjust/juvjus/jjpolicies/YCJSReport. pdf â€Å"Youth risk behavior surveillance – United States, 2001. † Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries. June 28, 2002. MMWR, 51(SS-4), p. 6. 10 March 2008. http://www. cdc. gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5104a1. htm. â€Å"Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Executive Summary. † U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. p. vii. Comparison of data from the Monitoring the Future Study from the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research and data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program. 11 March 2008. http://www. surgeongeneral. gov/library/youthviolence/summary. htm. How to cite Revisiting the Juvenile Offenders in Adult Criminal Justice System, Papers

Tuesday, May 5, 2020

New Directions in Planning Theory free essay sample

She examines the three approaches referred to above under the rubrics of: (1) the communicative del; sometimes called the collaborative model, emphasizes the planners role in mediating among stakeholders within the planning situation (2) the new urbanism; frequently labeled neo-traditionalism, paints a physical picture of a desirable city to be obtained through planning; ; (3) and the just city, which derives from the political economy tradition, while also outcome oriented, is more abstract than the new urbanism, presenting a model of spatial relations based on equity. The Communicative Model The communicative model draws on two philosophical approaches-? American pragmatism as developed in the thought of John Dewey and Richard Rotor and the theory of communicative rationality as worked out by Judger Habeas. 5 The two strands differ somewhat in their methodologies. Neo-pragmatism tends toward empiricism. Theoretical and Practical Deficiencies In its effort to save planning from elitist tendencies, communicative planning theory runs into difficulties. The communicative model should not be faulted for its ideals of openness and diversity. We will write a custom essay sample on New Directions in Planning Theory or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page New urbanism have achieved considerable attention in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in Great Britain . Their orientation resembles that of the early planning theorists Benzene Howard, Frederic Law Limited, Patrick Geodesin their aim of using spatial relations to create a close-knit social community that allows diverse elements to interact. The new urbanism call for an urban design that includes a variety of building types, mixed uses, intermingling of housing for different income groups, and a strong privileging of the public realm CritiqueThe new urbanism is vulnerable to the accusation that its proponents oversell their product, promoting an unrealistic environmental determinism that has threaded its way throughout the history of physical planning THE JUST CITY In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific Frederica Engels (1 935, p. 54) presents the Marxian critique of utopianism: The final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in minis brains, not in mans better insight into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.For Marx and Engels, social transformation could occur only when the times were ripe, when circumstances enabled the forces for social amelioration to attain their objectives. In their view utopian thinkers like Robert Owen and Fouri er could not succeed because they developed a social ideal that did not coincide with a material reality still dominated by capitalist interests. Only smashing the structure of class domination could create the conditions for achieving a just society.CONCLUSION In Her conclusion she defends the continued use of the just city mode and a edified form of the political-economy mode of analysis that underlies it, described below The three types of planning theory described in this essay all embrace a social reformist outlook. They represent a move from the purely critical perspective that characterized much theory in the seventies and eighties to one that once again offers a promise of a better life. Whereas reaction to technocracy and positivism shaped planning theory of that period, more recent planning thought has responded to the challenge of post- modernism.

Tuesday, March 31, 2020

Student Advice on College Interviews

When students think about college applications, there’s a natural list of things they all start stressing about: college research, financial aid, college essays, recommendations, and college interviews. Each element of the application may not be equally important, but they should all combine to make the most compelling application. One of the elements that is regarded with less importance is the college interview. Not every university conducts alumni interviews, and not every applicant will receive on either. So, don’t let this be a top concern of yours. In fact, they are usually very human conversations, and a chance for you to find out more about the university you applied and the alumni network. Take it from these students at Brown, Yale, Middlebury, Stanford and Georgetown who went through the application season just last year! mouse43Yale University ‘20I interviewed on-campus at Yale and had a disheartening experience. I showed up wearing jeans because the dress I had packed and planned to wear ripped last-minute in a rather inappropriate location. My interviewer also asked only one question about me. I had to force information about myself into the conversation - and maybe testing my assertiveness and resilience was his very intent -, but it was overall a very unproductive, non-educational experience and a waste of thirty minutes. But, I still got in early. Dont lose hope, and never count yourself out. Katherine2020 Brown University ‘20 I began to regret applying to Princeton after my interview. My interviewer was kind of a jerk, he came late and then, after hearing about my interests he was completely fixated on talking about my post-college plans. After I mentioned I was interested in Rabbinical school, he told me that I dont need to go to Princeton. And after talking to him, I certainly didnt want to! Naomi Cutler Middlebury College ‘20 I only interviewed with Middlebury because I was reluctant to reach out to other schools when visiting. Middlebury contacted me after my application was turned in and I accepted because I did not want to hurt my chances in any way. Although I have no idea if my interview had any influence on my acceptance, it was definitely a good life experience. I would recommend that students reach out at least to their top choice schools. Its also great practice for a job interview someday!Gw1998Stanford University ‘20I interviewed with most of the schools I applied to, but giving my experience for specific interviewers probably wont help because every interviewer is different! Overall, I think the interview should be a place where you can show your personality and your passion. Dont focus on your application details or just re-stating your EC list. Show why you joined those activities, what you feel about those activities. Demonstrate your interest in your major, or your intellectual curio sity. In my personal experience, the interviewers who are nicer are often less helpful because theyll let you get away with comfortably regurgitating your application details. If your interviewer doesnt push you to go further in exploring your interests and passions, make sure to bring it up yourself!Emmarhodes Georgetown University ‘20 I interviewed with Pomona, Georgetown, Brown, and Tufts. My Georgetown, Tufts, and Pomona interviews lasted about an hour. For the Georgetown one, we mainly talked about my extracurriculars, why I wanted to go to Georgetown, and any questions I had about the school. Tufts and Pomona were similar, but my Pomona interviewer asked some more unexpected questions like If you could give a TED Talk, what would it be? and What is your educational philosophy? which I was not really expecting. My Brown interview went the best because one of my extracurricular activities related to my interviewers job, so we bonded over that, and because my interviewer was just really nice! Before getting my decisions back I thought interviews were a big deal, so I was really worried that I missed the deadlines for signing up for a few of my interviews. In the end it didnt seem like the interviews made much difference, so I would look at them as a friendly conversation with someone getting to know you and not s tress about them! Use it as a chance to show them your personality and try to bring out stories that arent included in the rest of your application! Are youjust starting to build outyour college list? Make sure to search through profiles of students accepted to see essays, stats, and advice. See how they got in, and how you can too!

Saturday, March 7, 2020

Traits Theory in Leadership

Traits Theory in Leadership Introduction Leadership was first used by Greeks to refer to those who were known as first among equals. The term involved operations on the platform of accountability which was used in enhancing equity within the society. Assertiveness, courage, and imitation were some of the traits considered to be responsible for leadership effectiveness amongst individuals (Zaccaro, 1991).Advertising We will write a custom critical writing sample on Traits Theory in Leadership specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The success of any group is attributed to the kind of leadership it has or operates under. Successful leadership entails delegation of group interests with respect to individuals’ association with specific policies. Thus leadership involves combination of traits that could be incubated and propagated through an organization and includes all members. Qualities of a leader Leadership means ability to influence and extend necessary suppor t to others making them work towards achieving specific goals. A leader posses various qualities which include being dynamic, tactful, motivator, orator, futurist, good analyzer, social, supportive and should have job related knowledge. A leader should be the kind of person capable and ready of taking any risk amidst controversial issues. He should have the ability of putting his juniors on toes for the purposes of achieving important goals. Good communication forms part of leadership since messages and objectives need to be articulated through clear and well understood means. Interractiveness form part of socialization where a leader is required to mingle with his subordinates and even offer them support within different areas of need (Zaccaro, 1991). Traits of leadership Hypothesis shows that history has since been shaped by extraordinary leadership; this forms critical starting point for the trait theory of leadership (Zaccaro, 1991). Trait theory argues that leadership fully dep ends on the personal qualities of the leader. Some researchers were acknowledged earlier for the manner through which they applied trait theory, one of them being Bowden 1926. Cowley 1931, summarized by indicating that understanding of leadership required the study of traits. Table 1 below, gives the level of interractiveness involved in traits of leadership. Self confidence appears in all but two of the reviews, whereas other traits including adjustment, sociability and integrity tend to appear in multiple reviews though not consistent (Anderson, 1978).Advertising Looking for critical writing on psychology? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Dominance emerged as an important leadership trait within some major reviews. An important observation is the exclusive trait of self confidence; none of the traits emerged as related to leadership in the majority of these reviews (Mann, 1959). Table 1: Review of traits of effectiv e or emergent leaders Leadership Criteria There is general agreement that a five factor model of personality developed by some personalities in early nineteen sixties could be used to describe the most critical aspects of personality (Goldberg, 1990). Traits studied in the five factor model include; Neuroticism, nature of being open towards experiences, extraversion, agreeableness and Conscientiousness. However, several ways emerged on how leadership could be assessed explicitly. Two distinctive classes of leadership emerged which were referred to as leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness. The former refers to the nature of quality as seen by other people concerning leadership’s capability of an individual. This may not be such accurate since the analysis is based on limited knowledge about the leader. Personality traits of an individual leader are deeply explored before making any applicable conclusion. Neuroticism This could be referred to as the status where an individual posses weak emotions towards events. This leads to stressful emotional reactions and experiences. Reviews done by Bass (1990) showed positive correlation in studies on self confidence that showed low levels of neuroticism to leadership. Self esteem an indicator of low neuroticism is thought to be a factor in both senior and subordinate staff within organizations.Advertising We will write a custom critical writing sample on Traits Theory in Leadership specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Neurotic individuals as indicated by some authors are less likely to be perceived as leaders. In consideration of these facts, neuroticism is thought to be negatively related to leader emergence and leadership effectiveness. Extraversion An extravert person is thought to possess leadership traits which make him/her active, assertive, energetic, restless and not easily withdrawn from circumstances (Gough, 1988). According to Costa 1988, extrave rsion is strongly related to social leadership whereas other publications agree that extraversion leads to emergence of a leader within groups. Extraverts are viewed by others to possess unique leadership traits that are of great importance within the field. Leaders are more likely expected to be more energetic as compared to non leaders, they are required to have more stamina and be generally active, lively, and often restless, (Kirkpatrick and Locke 1991). Major facets among extraverts thought to be leaders comprises of dominance and sociability, (Gough, 1990). There is a general feeling that links extroverts to leadership emergence which is mostly associated with leadership effectiveness. Openness This represents the status where leaders are expected to be mentally alert and autonomous when conducting events. According to Bass 1990, openness is the most vital trait of leadership. Openness shows a positive correlation to personality based upon behavioural measures of creativity. T his trait also correlates with the ability to think widely beyond limitations placed by human will. Creativity appears to be an important skill to effective leaders. Research indicates that creativity is linked to effective leadership. There is a consensus belief which suggests that open individuals are more likely to emerge as effective leaders at any given place. Agreeableness This involves the status of being considerate towards situations and events. Zaccaro 1991 discovered that interpersonal sensitivity was related to leadership. Altruism, tact and sensitivity are hallmarks of agreeable personality and would suggest that leaders should be more agreeable.Advertising Looking for critical writing on psychology? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Agreeable individuals are likely to be modest and they tend not to be excessively modest as well as being affiliated to certain groups (Bass, 1990; Goldberg, 1990). Need for affiliation appears to be negatively related to leadership in some circumstances (Yukl, 1998). These factors suggest that agreeableness would be negatively related to leadership. In light of these conflicting justifications, the possible relationship between agreeableness and leadership appear little bit ambiguous. Conscientiousness This involves leadership with the end result in mind; the leader proves dependable in times of need and ensures tasks are appropriately completed. Effectiveness for the group and reinforcement of the tendencies all depends on the leadership positioning (Bass, 1990). According to Barrick 1991, conscientiousness is related to job performance which in turn depends on leader effectiveness. Kirkpatrick and Locke 1991 noted that leaders should be tirelessly persistent in their activities a nd follow through with their programs. Conscientious individuals should have more tenacity and persistence therefore expected to make excellently effective leaders that conscientious individuals will be more effective leaders (Goldberg, 1990). Trait theories have been used for the purposes of differentiating between leaders and non leaders. Qualities such as ambition, energy, eagerness to lead, honesty, integrity, self confidence, intelligence, and job relevant knowledge are those which differentiates leaders from non-leaders. Those who find pleasure in shepherding others are considered to make good leaders. Several theories were developed in the process of describing traits. Path goal theory This theory was discovered by Robert House. It involves the extraction of key elements on structure initiation and consideration from Ohio state leadership structure. Also the theory incorporates expectancy theory of motivation. The theory argues that it is upon leaders to help their followers and ensure that they achieve the necessary goals in life and within particular organizations. Four types of leaders’ behaviours are described within this theory; directive behaviours which enable followers easily imitate what is expected of them. Supportive behaviours which shows lots of concern to members, then there is participative behaviour which makes a leader be more consultative with those he/she leads. Finally, there is an achievement behaviour which makes the leader to challenge members through setting of higher goals. Leader Participation Model This is the kind of model which relates leadership behaviour and the level of his/her participation in decision making. This model provides rules which are helpful in the process of analysing leader’s contributions. The levels of participation are drawn against personality traits of the leader under review. Qualities such as ability to communicate effectively, ability to relate freely with members and other employees a nd also training qualities are considered within this model. Conclusion Barrick and Mount (1991), investigated the relationship of the Big Five traits to leadership pooling across the leadership criteria. Conceptually leadership effectiveness and emergence are distinct constructs. Effectiveness and emergence in leadership are analyzed through measures and observations by other people’s perception of leadership. There exists a strong link to ascertain that Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness are related to multiple leadership criteria and that these traits display significant relationships with leadership in combined analysis. Emphasis should be given on the importance of teamwork within the various individuals within any group. Leadership requires proper attention to team members through various means which includes providing appropriate advices on ways of improving the overall performances. Leaders should ensure that all the programs used appropriately towards strengthen ing of group members making them ready for any challenging task. At the same time leadership roles should be reinforced through delegation of some duties to individual members; this ensures that all employees and members are actively involved in the running of the team. Leaders should learn to engage the staff in open conversations and record every crucial matter that arises from the conversations. They should also be involved in teaching and guiding the team through various processes and showing them various ways of solving specific problems. Leaders should learn the importance of prioritizing events both on short term and long term basis. In this way it is easy to provide leadership towards utilization of available resources on areas which require immediate attention in the quest for providing quality services. They should be capable of selecting competent members having the capability of working towards achieving the laid down long term objectives. Leaders chosen in every departm ent should have the capability of playing supervisory roles ensuring provision of quality services. Trait theories have been effectively applied for the purposes of differentiating leaders. It makes it easier to identify and associate highly flexible people with leadership, this is since they have dynamic capabilities which enables them to adequately monitor others. References Anderson, G. Viswesvaran, C., 1998. An Update of the Validity of Personality Scales in Personnel Selection. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, TX; Dallas. Print. Barrick, M. R. Mount, M. K., 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, (44), pp.1–26. Bass, B. M., 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press. Bowden, A. O., 1926. A study of the Personality of Student Leaders in the United States. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, (21) , pp. 149–160. Costa, P. T. McCrae, R. R., 1988. Personality in Adulthood: A six-year Longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (54), pp.853–863. Cowley, W. H., 1931. Three Distinctions in the Study of Leaders. Journal of  Abnormal and Social Psychology, (26), pp. 304–313. Goldberg, L. R., 1990. An alternative â€Å"description of personality†: The Big-Five Factor Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (59), pp.1216–1229. Gough, H. G., 1988. Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hughes, R. L. Curphy, G. J., 1996. Leadership. Boston: Irwin McGraw Hill. Kirkpatrick, S. A. Locke, E. A., 1991. Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive, (5), pp. 48–60. Mann, R. D., 1959. A review of the relationships between personality and Performance in small groups. Ps ychological Bulletin, (56), pp. 241–270. Stogdill, R. M., 1974. Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press. Yukl, G. Van Fleet, D. D., 1992. Theory and research on leadership in Organizations. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (3), pp. 147–197 Zaccaro, S. J. Kenny, D. A., 1991. Self Monitoring and Trait based Variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, (76), pp. 308–315.