Leadership and Management in Practice Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

Leadership and Management in Practice - Essay Example From the experience of nurse managers, the problems with work are problems mostly with people. The primary purpose for studying leadership and management is to learn how to work with people, not only as individuals but also as members of groups, teams, and organizations. Use of nursing leadership and management concepts and skills allows the nurse manager a greater understanding and control of events in work situations (Clark, 1994). In health care we work in many different kinds of teams, many of them multidisciplinary, with many different management arrangements. There are many teams where managerially the team is accountable to one person but individual members each have professional hierarchies of their own. In many of the teams I have worked with there are some members who believe the team exists in order to advise the team leader, and others who perceive it as a decision-making group, with all members having an equal say. When these beliefs coexist in the same group, without being made explicit, then unresolved conflict is inevitable, and typically members will complain about each other (Wenckus, 1995). The scenario which is being dealt in here actually happened in our unit. There are two teams, team A and team B. As of now, there is gross animosity between these two teams to an extent that member of team A has stopped talking to each other and among one another. If several members of team-A are out sick, no one in team B will help team A on work. Team A members have stopped taking telephone messages of any members in team B and team B members would ask the caller to call later if the call is for any one in team A. When members of each team come across each other in the hall, they try to avoid eye contact or if at all they make contacts they will glare at each other. It seems the whole unit is in a state of perennial argument with one another. In many states during the work, the argument is sure to occur when the same piece of

Scott Consigny on Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric. :: Philosophy Philosophical Papers

Scott Consigny on Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric Edward Schiappa's cogent and eloquent book fully deserves the praise it has received. As Donovan Ochs observes in his 1991 review of the book (RSQ 21: 3942), Schiappa, presents a clear account of Protagoras' philosophy and supports his reading with a detailed analysis of each of Protagoras' five extant fragments. But even though Schiappa's reading is compelling, we need not necessarily be persuaded by it; for as Protagoras himself remarks, it is always possible to articulate two opposed accounts about everything, and to make the ostensibly weaker account stronger. In this review I will undertake a "Protagorean" project, articulating and defending an account of Protagoras' philosophy that is opposed to Schiappa's account. To this end I will briefly sketch Schiappa's account, which I label an "enlightenment" reading of Protagoras, and I will then sketch an opposed, "rhetoricist" reading of the Sophist. Schiappa begins his study by acknowledging his debt to George Grote and Eric Havelock. Schiappa concurs with Grote's assessment of the Sophists as "a positive force" in the fifth-century Greek enlightenment (12); and he accepts Havelock's notion that the transition from orality to literacy in Greek society led to a progression "from a mythic-poetic to a more literate, humanistic-rationalistic culture" (21). Drawing on these two scholars, Schiappa depicts Protagoras as a pivotal figure of the fifth century enlightenment helping to transform Greece from an irrational, mythical and theocentric culture into a rational and humanistic culture. Schiappa then proceeds to examine Protagoras' contribution to this intellectual progress, namely his advocacy and analysis of logos, or "rationality" as the proper means of inquiry. In a detailed analysis of Protagoras' five extant fragments, Schiappa argues that Protagoras provides the groundwork for the subsequent development of rational inquiry by delineating the assumptions or principles, the proper procedure or method, and the kind of results or explanations that may be attained through rational inquiry. Concerning Protagoras' conception of the starting points or principles of inquiry, Schiappa argues that in his remark that "humanity is the measure of all things," Protagoras sharply differentiates his anthropocentric logos from the theocentric mythos of the poets who claim to be inspired by the gods. Schiappa also construes Protagoras' remark that he is unable to know whether or not the gods exist as further underscoring the Sophist's rejection of theocentricity. These remarks are fundamental to Protagoras' project, for in them he suggests that valid inquiry must be initiated by humans themselves, without information supplied by the gods.

Bauhaus School

Das Bauhaus Jeremy Hart German Civilization 2320 Professors Cook, Kopp, and Prager March 6, 2013 The Bauhaus, a revolutionary school of art and craft founded by Walter Gropius in 1919, stands today as an important influence on postmodern art and architecture. It is also the namesake of its own movement; which is characterized by severely economic and geometric designs and a functional view of materials. To truly understand the origins of the Bauhaus and the importance of its modern implications, we must first know about the influences that its founder relied on. The Vienna Secession was formed in Austria in 1897.The secessionist artists attempted to create their own style that had no clear relation to any historical eras. Paired with this avant-garde approach, they relied on more pure geometric designs to produce their art. The geometric approach to art proved to have lasting effects on Gropius and his contemporaries. The Werkbund was the German model of the Vienna Secession. Founded in 1907, the 12 artists and 12 industrialists who comprised it aimed to infuse industry with modern and functional designs. These designs would both foster efficiency and function and be free of traditional elements and ornamentation.A leading artist in the Werkbund named Peter Behrens was Gropius’ mentor and employer. Along with Belgian painter Henry van de Velde, the two men were Gropius’ main influences in forming the Bauhaus. In the Bauhaus manifesto he wrote in 1919, Gropius vows to return artists to the deep seat of creativity that rests in the handicrafts, and bring together an unbiased consortium of artists who would dictate architectural style to the modern world: â€Å"By the grace of Heaven and in rare moments of inspiration which transcend the will, art may unconsciously blossom from the labour of is hand, but a base in handicrafts is essential to every artist. It is there that the original source of creativity lies. Let us therefore create a new guild of craftsmen without the class-distinctions that raise an arrogant barrier between craftsmen and artists! Let us desire, conceive, and create the new building of the future together. It will combine architecture, sculpture, and painting in a single form, and will one day rise towards the heavens from the hands of a million workers as the crystalline symbol of a new and coming faith. In the latter half of this passage, Gropius is expressing a Utopian vision that encompasses the general public: â€Å"†¦building of the future together†¦from the hands of a million workers. † The new styles would not be just for artists, but their work would be accessible to everyone. The nature of the designs would be streamlined and simple to they could be mass-produced. The art would not only be of interest and use to a niche audience but to the majority, so they could appreciate its function and efficiency When the new conservative government of Weimar withdrew support for the Bauhaus in 1925, it found a new home in Dessau.Out of the new home in Dessau came the radical changes in style and material of everyday items, such as tea infusers, office chairs, and table lamps. Most importantly perhaps, the Bauhaus in Dessau was the home of the first workshop for architecture, the key Gropius outlined in his manifesto that would serve as the medium for infusing function and creativity into everyday applications. The new architecture would be the first tangible contributions to industry. Prior to this point, Germany had been in the midst of a severe economic crisis brought on by World War I.Now that there was money to be spent, new innovations in architecture began to become the standard in the modern industrial world. The first chance the new school had to prove itself, quite ironically, was by building itself. The school was to be constructed following mostly Gropius’ designs, now commonplace features of Bauhaus architecture: flat roofs, lack of ornamentation, an d strict geometric lines. The first true revolution in architecture for which the Bauhaus is credited came in the form of the workers’ housing areas.Architect and Gropius contemporary Ludwig Mies van der Rohe organized an exhibition for architects to design a modern solution for worker housing, with only one rule that each building have a flat roof. Unfortunately no groundbreaking design was hatched, but the designs helped change the culture of architecture forever. The Bauhaus was already establishing itself as a symbol of progressive art and architecture. Following the architectural and industrial boom in Germany, the Bauhaus relocated to America in 1933, fleeing Hitler and the Nazis.New director Laszlo Moholy-Nagy founded the New Bauhaus in Chicago. The spirit of innovation that marked the original Bauhaus was just as prevalent here as New Bauhaus students developed breakthroughs in photography, film, and the use of materials. In America, the Bauhaus style is still influen cing the gamut of industrial design, from towering skyscrapers that seem to be built entirely out of glass, to ‘wiggle chairs’ actually made completely of cardboard. Ultimately, postmodernists and modernists stand starkly opposed when it comes to the necessary attributes and function of designs and art.Postmodern culture was born out of a disregard for modernist minimalism, arguably a style perpetuated if not championed by Bauhaus theory. So one can say modernism is the de facto reason for postmodernism’s existence. The practitioners of postmodernism sought to revive theories from previous centuries that appealed to the human need for comfort for the body and beauty for the eye. The true similarity between the two movements was the importance of function. Both schools of thought believed art and architecture specifically should serve to promote the building’s function. The true difference lies in aesthetics.So in the same way we attribute postmodern styles to high art of years past, we can also attribute Bauhaus styles to the past. Gropius’ vision of a return to purer geometric forms, a proclivity for functional efficiency, and respect for materials exemplifies this. We see the strong disjunction between modern (Bauhaus) and postmodern style as the latter reacting to the former. Making this connection lets us argue that modernism and postmodernism are actually two aspects of the same movement, and thus shows us that the free-thinking, subjective aspects of postmodernism owe their creation to the logical, analytical aspects of its predecessor.Works Referenced Bauhaus Museum. www. bauhausmuseum. com/history/manifesto Bauhaus School. March 4, 2013. http://thebauhaus. org/thebauhaus/ Chicago Bauhaus and Beyond. March 4, 2013. www. chicagobauhausbeyond. org Exhibit Bauhaus. March 4, 2013. http://bengal. missouri. edu/~kuhlerd/art327/index. html Roger Cook. Class notes. http://germanciv. missouri. edu/2320/bauhaus/index. html

The Art of the Freshman Essay Boring From Within

In a speech delivered half a century ago, English professor Wayne C. Booth described the characteristics of a formulaic essay assignment: I know of a high school English class in Indiana in which the students are explicitly told that their paper grades will not be affected by anything they say; required to write a paper a week, they are graded simply on the number of spelling and grammatical errors. What is more, they are given a standard form for their papers: each paper is to have three paragraphs, a beginning, a middle, and an end— or is it an introduction, a body, and a conclusion? The theory seems to be that if the student is not troubled about having to say anything, or about discovering a good way of saying it, he can then concentrate on the truly important matter of avoiding mistakes.(Wayne C. Booth, Boring From Within: The Art of the Freshman Essay. Speech to the Illinois Council of College Teachers of English, 1963) The inevitable result of such an assignment, he said, is a bag of wind or a bundle of received opinions. And the victim of the assignment is not only the class of students but the poor teacher who imposes it on them: I am haunted by the picture of that poor woman in Indiana, week after week reading batches of papers written by students who have been told that nothing they say can possibly affect her opinion of those papers. Could any hell imagined by Dante or Jean-Paul Sartre match this self-inflicted futility? Booth was quite aware that the hell he described was not confined to a single English class in Indiana. By 1963, formulaic writing (also called theme writing  and the five-paragraph essay) was well established as the norm in high school English classes and college composition programs throughout the U.S. Booth went on to propose three cures for those batches of boredom: efforts to give the students a sharper sense of writing to an audience, efforts to give them some substance to express, and efforts to improve their habits of observation and of approach to their task—what might be called improving their mental personalities. So, how far have we come over the past half century? Lets see. The formula now calls for five paragraphs rather than three, and most students are allowed to compose on computers. The concept of a three-pronged thesis statement - one in which each prong will then be further explored in one of the three body paragraphs - requires a slightly more sophisticated expression of substance. More significantly, research in composition has become a major academic industry, and the majority of instructors receive at least some training in the teaching of writing. But with larger classes, the inexorable rise of standardized testing, and the increasing reliance on part-time faculty, dont most of todays English instructors still feel compelled to privilege formulaic writing? While the basics of essay structure is, of course, a foundational skill that students must learn before expanding into larger essays, the hemming in of students to such formulas means that they fail to develop critical and creative thinking skills. Instead, students are taught to value form over function, or not to understand the link between form and function. There is a difference between teaching structure and teaching to a formula. Teaching structure in writing means teaching students how to craft a thesis statement and supporting arguments, why a topic sentence matters, and what a strong conclusion looks like. Teaching formula means teaching students that they must have a specific type of sentence or number of citations in a specific section, more of a paint-by-numbers approach. The former gives a foundation; the latter is something that has to be un-taught later on. Teaching to a formula may be easier in the short run, but it fails to educate students on how to truly write effectively, especially once they are asked to write a longer, more sophisticated essay than a five-paragraph high school essay question. The form of an essay is intended to serve the content. It makes arguments clear and concise, highlights the logical progression, and focuses the reader on what the main points are. Form is not formula, but it is often taught as such. The way out of this impasse, Booth said in 1963, would be for legislatures and school boards and college presidents to recognize the teaching of English for what it is: the most demanding of all teaching jobs, justifying the smallest sections and the lightest course loads. Were still waiting. More About Formulaic Writing EngfishThe Five-Paragraph EssayTheme WritingWhats Wrong With the Five-Paragraph Essay?