Love in A Rose For Emily by William Faulkner Essay

Love in A Rose For Emily by William Faulkner - Essay Example In â€Å"A Rose for Emily,† William Faulkner has portrayed the fact that the way in which an individual loves and expresses her love is dependent upon the way that he has been socially trained and brought up. Emily Grierson was raised by her father as her mother had passed away. He isolated her from the society and the people of their town. He brought her up in his own way. He was a proud man who believed that he was superior to all the men in the town and did not interact and socialize much with them. He instilled these qualities of arrogance and proudness in his daughter as well. Such was his thought of superiority that he turned down all the proposals that came for Emily. This is explained by Faulkner when he writes, â€Å"People in our town, remembering how old lady Wyatt, her great-aunt, had gone completely crazy at last, believed that the Griersons held themselves a little too high for what they really were. None of the young men were quite good enough for Miss Emily an d such.† This environment in which Emily was brought up affected her emotions and the way in which she expressed her emotions of love. She was proud and lived her life as per her own rules. When the city authorities came to her house, â€Å"She did not ask them to sit. ... She says, "I received a paper, yes," Miss Emily said. "Perhaps he considers himself the sheriff. . . . I have no taxes in Jefferson." This quality of considering herself to be superior above the other figures in the town was given to her by her father and she did consider the people of the town to be of importance in front of her. Emily was greatly attached to her father and his loss shattered her. She deeply loved him but her detachment from the society and her limited social environment prevented her from expressing her love for her father in a proper way. When the people from the town came to share her grief following her father’s death, â€Å"She told them that her father was not dead. She did that for three days, with the ministers calling on her, and the doctors, trying to persuade her to let them dispose of the body.† She did not allow the burial of her father and it was through forceful means that she finally gave in and allowed for his burial after three days. She wanted to be with her father and it was difficult for her to accept the fact that the person that she loved was no more with her. Emily did love her father but she was unaware of social norms and the ways in which she was supposed to communicate her love. Every individual wishes to keep their loved one safe and wants to be with the person that they love. It is through the experiences in the life of a person that he learns when it is truly the time to let go of your loved one. Emily loved but she lacked these qualities of showing her love and it was because of this that she could not understand the fact that her father was dead and she had to let go of him. Like

The turning point of historys great events Essay Example for Free

The turning point of historys great events Essay History is full of incidences which have altered its course. One such incident that has altered the course of present politics and possibly the course of international politics and international law is the horrendous act of terrorism of 9/11. In its wake the incident has left consequences that are still affecting the course of politics and international laws. United States actions against Iraq, Afghanistan and even its relation with the country of Western Europe have been affected in the aftermath of 9/11.   It seemed that United States identified Iraq as a potential threat to its policies in the Middle East and promoter of terrorism and despite UN resollution chose to go it alone and used a new doctrine of pre-emptive attack to what it saw as a potential threat from weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiled by Iraq. Unfortunately no WMD were found in Iraq but the doctrine of pre-emptive strike will be cited by many governments to attack their weaker neighbors. Israel was the only country to have used this doctrine to attack Iraqi under construction nuclear power plant. The United Nations and United States had condemned Israel for this action. The War on Terrorism also created dilemmas for International law as United States refused to recognize Taliban [Borelli, 2005]   and Al-Qaeda suspects as Prisoners of War[1] (POW) and classified them as Illegal combatant[2] denying them status of both common criminal and POWs creating problems such as Guantanamo Bay, CIA interrogation Centers and legal status of prisoners.. This has created a problem for the International law[3] and also a precedent for many other countries to cite in defense of their own illegal activities. The racial profiling and early version of Patriot Act once again discriminated between different type of US citizens, authorizing illegal wire tapping and invasion of privacy of law abiding Arab Americans which made the people recall Japanese internment during the Second World War. The attack on the World Trade Center had won United States worldwide sympathy and this opportunity could have been used to strengthen international laws against terrorism. The US government actions have alienated many of our traditional allies in Europe. The world is still not free of terrorism and the coalition of willing formed in the wake of 9/11 has not yet achieved its objectives. The United States citizens and Congress which gave almost a unanimous support to war on terrorism and War in Iraq now find that they have been misled by the government and have said so with their votes in the Congressional elections. It seems that the incident of 9/11 which had won us worldwide sympathy and desire to act against terrorism has resulted in a much divided and threatened world due to our actions since 9/11. One thing is certain; the incident of 9/11 has altered the course of the history. The new system will hopefully give more importance to international bodies and international laws [Gasser, 2002] to resolve dispute and the threats posed by terrorism. Alternatively, the consequences could further divide the world and may even create wider conflict in the Middle East and even more problems for the world peace. Bibliography Borelli, S. Legal Black Hole, retrieved from Internet on 27 February 2007 http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/review-857-p39/$File/irrc_857_Borelli.pdf Gasser, H., Acts of Terror, Terrorism and International law, ICRC, September 2002, Vol. 84, No 847, http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5FLCCX/$File/irrc_847_Gasser.pdf [1] George W. Bush, Memorandum on ‘Humane treatment of Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees ’, 7 February 2002, available at http://pegc.no-ip.info/archive/White_House/bush_memo_20020207_ed.pdf [2] Secretary of Defense, News Briefing, 11 January 2002,available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/briefings.html [3] According to news reports, shortly after the attacks of 11 September the President of the United States signed a secret order authorizing the CIA to set up a network of secret detention and interrogation centers outside the United States where high value prisoners could be subjected to interrogation tactics, which would be prohibited under US law. The US government negotiated â€Å"status of forces †agreements with several foreign governments allowing the US to set up CIA-run interrogation facilities and granting immunity to US personnel and private contractors; Ref: J. Barry, M. Hirsh and M. Isiko. â€Å"The roots of torture †, Newsweek, 24 May 2004;

A Midsummer Night’s Dream Essay: The Character of Bottom

The Character of Bottom in A Midsummer Night’s Dream The character of Bottom in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream is frequently foolish, but he is not a fool. His exuberance and energy are allied to practicality and resourcefulness, with an alarming lack of self-consciousness. He, at any rate, is not at all tongue-tied before the duke, as Theseus has known others to be. We do laugh at Bottom in many situations, but should note that these are situations in which any man might seem ridiculous: amateur theatricals are almost a byword for unintended comedy, whether in planning (1.2) rehearsal (3.1) or performance (5.1); any artisan afflicted with an ass's head and appetites, and beloved of the fairy queen would have difficulty retaining his dignity. It is true that Bottom by his ambitious speech, his ignorance of music and poetry, and his homely outlook is even more comic than most men in these situations, however. Bottom is, we presume, competent at his craft, and is respected by his fellows. In their view only Bottom can carry off the demanding r"le of Pyramus. They admire his presence, panache and vocal power. Theseus's comment on his "passion" may suggest some exaggeration in the playing, and this would be in keeping with Bottom's character, but we need not suppose the lines are badly-spoken, so much as badly-written. "He that writ it" attracts the most censure from Theseus. It is difficult to see how, given these lines, Bottom could be anything but comic in the performance of the play. And Shakespeare has already indicated that "hard-handed men" who have "never laboured in their minds till now" cannot be expected to perform competently. Theatre should be left to professionals (Bottom would not expect an actor to be ... ...haracteristics, but in the incongruity of this "mortal grossness", the grotesque, earthy and plain-speaking Bottom, and the beautiful, airy, eloquent and possibly dangerous fairy queen. The "bank whereon the wild thyme blows" and the beautiful fairy song "Philomel with lullaby", as well as the dainty morsels offered by Titania's servants - it is difficult to imagine a more alien creature to all this, than Bottom. We laugh at his ineptitude, at the incongruity of the situation, at the blatant illustration of the gulf between "reason and love"; we are disturbed by the indignity Titania undergoes, alarmed by the danger Bottom may be in, but reassured by his taking it in his stride. Bottom is a comic counterpart to Theseus and to Oberon: the natural leader in his own world, to whom others defer. And when he encounters their worlds he more than holds his own. A Midsummer Night’s Dream Essay: The Character of Bottom The Character of Bottom in A Midsummer Night’s Dream The character of Bottom in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream is frequently foolish, but he is not a fool. His exuberance and energy are allied to practicality and resourcefulness, with an alarming lack of self-consciousness. He, at any rate, is not at all tongue-tied before the duke, as Theseus has known others to be. We do laugh at Bottom in many situations, but should note that these are situations in which any man might seem ridiculous: amateur theatricals are almost a byword for unintended comedy, whether in planning (1.2) rehearsal (3.1) or performance (5.1); any artisan afflicted with an ass's head and appetites, and beloved of the fairy queen would have difficulty retaining his dignity. It is true that Bottom by his ambitious speech, his ignorance of music and poetry, and his homely outlook is even more comic than most men in these situations, however. Bottom is, we presume, competent at his craft, and is respected by his fellows. In their view only Bottom can carry off the demanding r"le of Pyramus. They admire his presence, panache and vocal power. Theseus's comment on his "passion" may suggest some exaggeration in the playing, and this would be in keeping with Bottom's character, but we need not suppose the lines are badly-spoken, so much as badly-written. "He that writ it" attracts the most censure from Theseus. It is difficult to see how, given these lines, Bottom could be anything but comic in the performance of the play. And Shakespeare has already indicated that "hard-handed men" who have "never laboured in their minds till now" cannot be expected to perform competently. Theatre should be left to professionals (Bottom would not expect an actor to be ... ...haracteristics, but in the incongruity of this "mortal grossness", the grotesque, earthy and plain-speaking Bottom, and the beautiful, airy, eloquent and possibly dangerous fairy queen. The "bank whereon the wild thyme blows" and the beautiful fairy song "Philomel with lullaby", as well as the dainty morsels offered by Titania's servants - it is difficult to imagine a more alien creature to all this, than Bottom. We laugh at his ineptitude, at the incongruity of the situation, at the blatant illustration of the gulf between "reason and love"; we are disturbed by the indignity Titania undergoes, alarmed by the danger Bottom may be in, but reassured by his taking it in his stride. Bottom is a comic counterpart to Theseus and to Oberon: the natural leader in his own world, to whom others defer. And when he encounters their worlds he more than holds his own.

Abusive Supervisory Reactions to Coworker Relationship Conflict

The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect The Leadership Quarterly j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a Abusive supervisory reactions to coworker relationship con? ict Kenneth J. Harris a,? , Paul Harvey b, K. Michele Kacmar cIndiana University Southeast, School of Business, 4201 Grant Line Road, New Albany, IN 47150, USA Management Department, Whittemore School of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire, USA Department of Management and Marketing, Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, 143 Alston Hall, Box 870225, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0225, USA b c a a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t This study extends research on abusive supervision by exploring how supervisor reports of conflict with their coworkers are related to abusive behaviors and resulting outcomes.We utilize research on displaced aggression, conflict, a nd leader–member exchange (LMX) theory to formulate our hypotheses. Results from two samples of 121 and 134 matched supervisor– subordinate dyads support the idea that supervisors experiencing coworker relationship conflict are likely to engage in abusive behaviors directed toward their subordinates and that LMX quality moderates this relationship. Additionally, abusive supervision was associated with decreased work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB).Results also indicate that in both samples abusive supervision mediates the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship conflict and OCB, and in one sample mediates the association between supervisor-reported coworker relationship conflict and work effort.  © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Available online 10 August 2011 Keywords: Abusive supervision Coworker relationship con? ict Multi-level 1. Introduction Abusive supervision, or the prolonged hostile treatment of subor dinates, has been recognized as a signi? ant threat to employee well being and productivity in both the popular press (e. g. , Elmer, 2006) and in organizational research (e. g. , Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007; Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, & Kacmar, 2007; Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, 2000, 2007; Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002). Behaviors that fall under the umbrella of abusive supervision, such as sabotaging, yelling at, or ignoring subordinates, have been linked to an array of negative consequences (see Tepper, 2007 for an overview).Research also suggests that these forms of abuse are alarmingly common in modern organizations (Namie & Namie, 2000; Tepper, 2007). The purpose of this study is to develop and test a conceptual model that expands our knowledge of antecedents, moderators, and consequences of abusive supervision. We also build on past research showing that supervisors' relationship c on? icts can â€Å"trickle down† to subordinates in the form of abusive behaviors (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007). Speci? cally, we test the notion that supervisors who experience relationship con? ct, de? ned as interpersonal â€Å"tension, animosity, and annoyance† (Jehn, 1995, p. 258), with their coworkers respond by abusing subordinates. The proposed relationship between supervisor-level coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision is rooted in the notion of displaced aggression, which occurs when the reaction to an unpleasant outcome or behavior from one source is redirected to a second source (Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine, & Pollock, 2003; Tedeschi & Norman, 1985).Consistent with Tepper (2007), we argue that the relatively weak retaliatory power of subordinates, as compared to coworkers, increases the likelihood that relationship con? ict-driven frustration will be vented at subordinates. We qualify this assumption, however, by arguing that supervisor s who experience coworker relationship con? ict will not behave abusively toward all of their subordinates. We explore ? Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email  protected] edu (K. J. Harris), Paul. [email  protected] edu (P. Harvey), [email  protected] ua. edu (K. M. Kacmar). 1048-9843/$ – see front matter  © 2011 Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved. doi:10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2011. 07. 020 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1011 this idea by examining leader–member relationship (LMX) quality as a moderator of the relationship between supervisors' levels of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision. Finally, we advance the extant research by investigating two supervisorrated employee outcomes (work effort, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB)), one of which has not previously been examined in the context of abusive supervision.These outcomes were chosen as they extend the literature and we were int erested in actual behaviors directed toward the job/task (work effort and task-focused OCB). We examine these relationships, shown in Fig. 1, in two separate samples of matched supervisor–subordinate dyads. Thus, the current study makes several contributions to the literature. First, we examine the in? uence of con? ict between supervisors on subordinate reports of abusive supervision. Examining this relationship is important because although coworker relationship con? cts have negative outcomes, studies have yet to investigate how supervisors experiencing these con? icts treat their subordinates. Second, we investigate LMX quality as a relationship variable that changes how supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are related. Third, we extend the nomological network of abusive supervision by examining the outcomes of work effort and OCB. Finally, we investigate the potential for abusive supervision to mediate the associations between supe rvisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and distal consequences.Thus, this study takes a ? rst step toward explaining how (through the intermediary mechanism of abusive supervision) supervisors' experiences of coworker relationship con? ict ultimately impact important job outcomes. 2. Abuse as a displaced response to coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision is de? ned as prolonged hostile treatment toward subordinates, excluding physical violence (Tepper, 2000). Research indicates that supervisors who perceive that they are victims of interactional or procedural injustice, both of which may be associated with coworker relationship con? ct (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001), are relatively more likely than others to abuse their subordinates (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007; Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006). Tepper, Duffy, Henle, and Lambert (2006) argued that this trickle-down effect, in which supervisors' frustrations are channeled into abusive behaviors targete d at subordinates, may occur because subordinates are a relatively safe target toward which supervisors can vent their frustrations (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006).This argument suggests abusive supervision may be a response to frustrating workplace events such as coworker relationship con? ict. Coworker con? ict has been linked to undesirable emotional states and can negatively impact interpersonal relationships (e. g. , Bergmann & Volkema, 1994; Deutch, 1969). Emotion research suggests that the anger and frustration associated with interpersonal con? ict can promote verbal (e. g. , shouting) and behavioral (e. g. , theft, sabotage, violence) aggression toward those who stimulate the con? ct (e. g. , Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939; Fox & Spector, 1999; Greenberg, 1990; Spector, 1975). Many of these behaviors, with the exception of physical violence, would fall under Tepper's (2000) de? nition of abusive supervision if aime d at subordinates. Drawing on ? ndings from research on displaced aggression we argue that, due to the relative power of supervisors' coworkers, these relationship con? ict-driven behaviors might, in fact, be targeted at subordinates.Displaced aggression occurs when individuals experience mistreatment from one party and respond by mistreating a second party (Hoobler & Brass, 2006, Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine & Pollock, 2003, Twenge & Campbell, 2003). Several triggers of displaced aggression have been identi? ed, including social rejection (Twenge & Campbell, 2003) and negative feedback (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Hoobler and Brass (2006) also showed that abusive supervision at work can promote displaced aggression toward family members at home. We examine abusive supervision as a form of displaced aggression ather than a predictor, although both conceptualizations are logical. Displaced aggression is often triggered by unpleasant workplace events (e. g. , Miller, Pedersen, Earlywi ne & Pollock, 2003) and abusive supervision ? ts this criteria. We argue that abusive supervision also can ? t the criteria of displaced aggression if it is triggered by events beyond the control of subordinates, such as the abusers' coworker relationship con? ict. Thus, abusive supervision can likely be both a cause of displaced aggression and a type of displaced aggression.Note: Dashed lines represent hypothesized mediated linkages Supervisor-Rated Subordinate Work Effort Supervisor-Rated Coworker Conflict Abusive Supervision Supervisor-Rated Subordinate TaskFocused OCB Moderator: Leader-Member Exchange Fig. 1. Hypothesized model. 1012 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 As Tepper, Duffy, Henle and Lambert (2006) argued, abusive supervision can be used as a means for venting frustration because subordinates have relatively low levels of retaliatory power and, therefore, serve as a lower-risk target for venting behaviors than do employees in po sitions of greater hierarchical power.Victim precipitation research also supports this logic, indicating that displaced aggression is often targeted at those who are unable or unwilling to defend themselves, as is likely the case among subordinates who can be disciplined and terminated by their supervisors (e. g. , Aquino, 2000). This desire to vent frustration at individuals who are unassociated with the initial con? ict, similar to the anecdotal notion of â€Å"kicking the dog† after a bad day at work, can be understood in the context of displaced aggression. Coworker relationship con? ct is a potent source of stress and frustration (Thomas, 1976, 1992) and, because these are unpleasant, individuals are motivated to engage in coping behaviors that will diminish their presence (Kemper, 1966). These emotion-driven coping behaviors can often take the form of hostile behaviors such as sabotage (Ambrose, Seabright & Schminke, 2002) and verbal assaults (Douglas & Martinko, 2001). Thus, coworker relationship con? ict may trigger aggressive behaviors (e. g. , yelling at others) that serve a coping function. Thomas (1976) noted, however, that the relative power of the parties to a con? ct in? uences the manner in which both parties will respond. When legitimate power levels are equal, as in the case of coworkers, hostile responses are likely to be met with retaliation although it is possible that the target of retaliation will respond with additional hostility, creating an escalating cycle of con? ict. Subordinates, on the other hand, are often reluctant to respond in kind to hostile supervisor behaviors for fear of losing their jobs. The fact that subordinates are not the cause of the supervisor's frustration, that is, the frustration is caused by supervisors' con? ct with their coworkers, may have little impact on the behavioral response if the behavior is largely motivated by emotion as opposed to logic. That is, the desire to vent anger over coworker relat ionship con? ict using a safe target may override concerns that subordinates are not the logical targets for retaliation, given that they are not the cause of the con? ict. Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 1. Supervisors' reports of coworker relationship con? ict are positively associated with abusive supervisory behaviors, as rated by subordinates. 2. 1. The moderating in? ence of LMX relationship quality Thomas (1976, 1992) argued that a conceptualization process occurs between the con? ict experience and the behavioral outcome in which information is processed and behavioral options are evaluated. Although this cognitive process is likely to incorporate a wide range of information, we argue that an evaluation of relationships with subordinates is particularly relevant when behaviors toward these individuals are concerned. LMX theory suggests that the quality of leader–member relationships varies from high to low (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 19 95).Subordinates in high quality exchanges are seen more favorably and receive advantages from their supervisors that their low quality LMX counterparts do not (e. g. , Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). As such, members in high quality exchanges receive preferential treatment from supervisors who are motivated to maintain these productive relationships. We expect that supervisors who experience high levels of coworker relationship con? ict may become abusive toward subordinates, but will be selective in choosing which subordinates to target. Abusive supervisory behaviors generally have a negative effect on ictims' levels of motivation and attitudes toward their jobs (e. g. , Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002; Schat, Desmarais, & Kelloway, 2006). Although it can be argued that effective managers would not want to risk these consequences with any employees, LMX theory would suggest that supervisors are especially motivated to maintain effective relationships with their high quality LMX subo rdinates. We argue, therefore, that supervisors who are frustrated by coworker relationship con? ict and who choose to react in an abusive manner will generally choose low quality LMX subordinates as their targets.Put differently, we expect that when con? ict-driven abuse occurs, members in low quality exchanges will experience it more strongly and frequently than members in high quality exchanges. Justice and victim precipitation theories provide additional support for this argument (e. g. , Aquino, 2000; Bies & Moag, 1986). From a justice perspective, instead of perceiving members of low quality LMX relationships as less risky targets for abuse, it can also be argued that supervisors ? nd it easier to justify abuse toward these employees. Members of low quality exchanges are often characterized by relatively low performance levels (e. . , Deluga & Perry, 1994; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993), and it might be argued that supervisors who use abusive behaviors to cope with relationsh ip con? ict-driven frustration will feel most justi? ed in focusing on these employees. That is, supervisors might rationalize the abuse by convincing themselves that relatively lowperforming subordinates in low quality LMX relationships deserve the abusive behavior. Victim precipitation research also suggests that several characteristics common among low quality LMX subordinates make them likely targets of abuse.Although provocative and threatening behaviors have been linked to retaliatory aggression (e. g. , Aquino & Byron, 2002; Tepper, 2007), more salient to our focus on leader–member relationships is the precipitation research indicating that abusive individuals often target those who are seen as weak or defenseless. Individuals who are hesitant to defend themselves or view themselves or their situations negatively appear to draw the attention of aggressive individuals (Aquino, 2000; Olweus, 1978; Rahim, 1983; Tepper, 2007).As discussed above, the hierarchical nature of their relationship likely promotes the former tendency among subordinates, making them relatively safe targets for abuse. Members in low quality exchanges, in particular, might be unwilling to further jeopardize their relationship with their supervisors by retaliating against abuse and might also internalize their undesirable status, promoting the negative perceptions of their workplace competence and situation (e. g. , Ferris, Brown, & Heller, 2009) that can provoke victimization.Similar to our arguments concerning displaced abuse of subordinates, victim precipitation research suggests that these aggressors might wish to engage in abusive behavior as a means to K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1013 preserve their social standing and bolster perceptions of their control over a situation (e. g. , Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Felson, 1978). As such, this line of research reinforces the notion that subordinates might be targeted for displac ed abuse and suggests that low quality LMX subordinates are especially likely to be viewed as vulnerable, and therefore relatively safe, targets.Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 2. The relationship between supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict and member-reported abusive supervision is moderated by LMX, such that the positive relationship is stronger when LMX relationship quality is lower. 2. 2. Outcomes of abusive supervision The outcome portion of our conceptual model, shown in Fig. 1, examines the effects of abusive supervisory responses to coworker relationship con? ict on work effort and OCB. While we do not posit that abusive supervision is the only factor mediating the relationships between supervisors' coworker relationship con? ct and these outcomes, we argue that abuse can serve as an explanatory mechanism and explain a relevant amount of variance in each consequence. Abusive supervision is a negative workplace event that, like con? ict, can ha ve negative attitudinal and behavioral consequences (Tepper, 2007; Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008; Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007). It has been argued that these outcomes are caused by the stress and emotional strain associated with abuse from individuals in a position of power (e. g. Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002; Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter & Kacmar, 2007; Tepper, 2000). Further, Duffy, Ganster and Pagon (2002) found evidence suggesting that abuse promotes diminished self-ef? cacy. As we discuss in the following sections, each of these consequences of abusive supervision can be logically linked to the outcomes depicted in Fig. 1. 2. 2. 1. Work effort Because abusive supervision can diminish victims' con? dence in their abilities (Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002), it follows that motivation to exert high levels of effort at work will likely decrease in response to abuse.Abusive supervisors, who by de? nition are consistent in their abuse (Tepper, 2000), might eve ntually wear employees down with a steady onslaught of aggressive behavior (e. g. , yelling, criticizing), reducing their con? dence and motivation. Similarly, it may be that over time abusive supervision promotes emotional exhaustion (Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter & Kacmar, 2007; Tepper, 2000), a condition characterized by diminished emotional and physical coping abilities and closely associated with job burnout (Brewer & Shapard, 2004; Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003).Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter and Kacmar (2007) argued that this relationship was likely due to the persistent assault on employees' feelings and ef? cacy perceptions (Savicki & Cooley, 1983) associated with abusive supervision. When emotional exhaustion occurs, individuals demonstrate diminished motivation and a reduced ability to handle stressful work events, promoting a reduction in work effort (Brewer & Shapard, 2004; Kahill, 1988; Leiter & Maslach, 1988).Using a different lens to view the abuse–work effort asso ciation, employees might also view abusive supervision as a form of psychological contract breach, as subordinates generally do not expect to be abused by those given the authority to supervise them (Tepper, 2000). When employees perceive that a breach has taken place, they often feel less compelled to ful? ll their obligation to exert high levels of work effort (Harris, Kacmar & Zivnuska, 2007). 2. 2. 2. Citizenship behaviors The ? nal outcome depicted in Fig. 1 concerns the negative in? ence of coworker relationship con? ict-driven abuse and subordinates' propensity to engage in OCB. This predicted relationship is based on research indicating that abusive supervision is associated with factors, including decreased organizational commitment, poor work-related attitudes, and injustice perceptions (Aryee, Chen, Sun & Debrah, 2007; Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002; Schat, Desmarais, & Kelloway, 2006; Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002), that can inhibit citizenship behaviors (Ambrose, Seabrigh t & Schminke, 2002; Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002).Victims of abusive supervision often feel that they have been treated unjustly (Tepper, 2000), a perception that is associated with reduced levels of OCB (Moorman, 1991). As Judge, Scott, and Ilies (2006) argued, unjust treatment is likely to qualify as a negative affective event and can therefore provoke a retaliatory behavioral response. One such response could logically be the withholding of citizenship behaviors, which are not a requirement of the job and could run counter to the goal of retaliation by making the supervisor's job easier (e. g. , Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002).In support of this reasoning, additional research indicates that abusive supervision motivates retaliatory behaviors such as workplace deviance and aggression that run contrary to the notion of citizenship behavior (Dupre, Inness, Connelly, Barling, & Hoption, 2006; Schaubhut, Adams, & Jex, 2004). Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 3. Abusive supervision is negatively related to supervisor reports of subordinate work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors. 2. 3. The mediating role of abusive supervision We have argued that relationship con? ct between supervisors and their coworkers is associated with abusive supervisory behaviors, and that such behaviors have negative implications for victims' levels of work effort and OCB. Implicit in this line of reasoning is the notion that coworker relationship con? ict at the supervisor level is ultimately associated with decreased levels of 1014 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 effort and OCB at the subordinate level, and that abusive supervision acts a mediator between these variables. More speci? ally, the negative effects of supervisors' relationship con? ict with their coworkers are predicted to manifest themselves in the form of abusive behaviors that negatively affect employees' attitudes and behaviors, promoting negative sub ordinate outcomes. Thus, while a relationship between a supervisor's level of coworker relationship con? ict and subordinates' levels of effort and OCB may seem somewhat abstract, we suggest that coworker relationship con? ict-driven abusive supervision provides an intermediary link between these variables.Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 4. Abusive supervision mediates the negative relationships between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors. 3. Method 3. 1. Samples and procedures The samples utilized in this study were from two different divisions of a state government. The division in Sample 1 was responsible for handling disease related issues (e. g. , STDs, immunizations, tuberculosis), whereas the division in Sample 2 handled environmental health related issues (e. g. , radiation, clean water).To begin the data collection efforts, the director of each division sent an email to all employees in th eir branch. The email informed the potential respondents of the study's purpose, that participation was voluntary, and that the results would be con? dential. After this email, the researchers sent a personalized message again explaining the goal of the survey, the con? dentiality of responses, and a web link to the survey. Respondents were asked to complete the survey during the next month. Respondents were required to provide their supervisor's name to match supervisor–subordinate responses.At the same time, supervisors were asked to provide ratings on each of their direct reports. In Sample 1, eliminating responses with missing data or those that were unable to be matched (i. e. , we received a subordinate response, but not a matching supervisor response) resulted in a sample size of 121 (58% response rate). Subordinates were 68% female, the average age was 41. 68 years, the average job tenure was 3. 38 years, and their average organizational tenure was 5. 22 years. In tot al, 28 supervisors provided ratings, resulting in an average of 4. 32 ratings per supervisor.For the supervisors, the demographic breakdown was 57% female, the average age was 47. 91 years, the average job tenure was 4. 79 years, and their average organizational tenure was 7. 73 years. After the elimination of unusable responses in Sample 2, our usable sample size was 134 (64% response rate). Participants in Sample 2 were 60% male, had an average age of 46. 04 years, average job tenure of 7. 04 years, and average organizational tenure of 11. 51 years. Forty-four supervisors provided ratings, which resulted in an average of 3. 05 ratings per supervisor.The demographic breakdown for the supervisors was 75% male, an average age of 49. 29 years, average job tenure of 9. 64 years, and average organizational tenure of 16. 26 years. 3. 2. Measures Unless otherwise noted, a 5-point Likert scale (anchors: â€Å"strongly disagree† (1) to â€Å"strongly agree† (5)) was used for a ll survey items. Scales were coded with high values representing high levels of the constructs. 3. 3. Subordinate measures 3. 3. 1. Abusive supervision In both samples abusive supervision was measured with six items from Tepper's (2000) measure.We were unable to use the full 15-item measure due to management concerns about the survey's overall length. Thus, we had experts in the area look at the content of each of the items, and we chose 6 items that best captured the full range of abusive supervisory behaviors. The items we chose were â€Å"My supervisor makes negative comments about me to others,† â€Å"My supervisor gives me the silent treatment,† â€Å"My supervisor expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason,† â€Å"My supervisor is rude to me,† â€Å"My supervisor breaks promises he/she makes,† and â€Å"My supervisor puts me down in front of others. In an effort to establish the validity of our shortened scale, we compared o ur reduced scale to the full measure using the data from the Tepper (2000) article. 1 We found that the full 15-item scale was correlated with our 6-item scale at . 96. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 90 for Sample 1 and . 92 for Sample 2. 3. 3. 2. Leader–member exchange We used Liden and Maslyn's (1998) 12-item leader–member exchange multidimensional scale to measure exchange quality in both samples. A sample item included â€Å"My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 94 for Sample 1 and . 92 for Sample 2. 1 We thank Ben Tepper for allowing us to use his original data for this correlation. K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1015 3. 4. Supervisor measures 3. 4. 1. Coworker relationship con? ict In both samples supervisors rated their relationship con? icts with their coworkers using the 4-item Jehn (1995) scale. A sample item included à ¢â‚¬Å"Is there tension among your coworkers? † These questions were included in a section of the survey here the supervisors were answering questions about their attitudes, behaviors, and relationships with their coworkers. This section was separate from the section where supervisors commented on their subordinates, thus making it clear that these relationship con? ict questions were focused on coworkers at their level in the organization (e. g. , managers' relationship con? icts with other managers). The response scale for this construct was â€Å"Not at all (1)† to â€Å"To a very great extent (5)†. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 95 for Sample 1 and . 94 for Sample 2. 3. 4. 2.Work effort In both samples supervisors rated subordinates' work effort using Brown and Leigh's (1996) 5-item scale. A sample item was â€Å"When there's a job to be done, this subordinate devotes all his/her energy to getting it done. † The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 93 for Sample 1 and . 94 for Sample 2. 3. 4. 3. Organizational citizenship behaviors Supervisors responded to Settoon and Mossholder's (2002) 6-item scale to measure subordinate task-focused OCB in both samples. A sample item was â€Å"This subordinate assists coworkers with heavy work loads even though it is not part of the job. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 84 for Sample 1 and . 81 for Sample 2. 3. 5. Control variables We controlled for four variables, all measured from the subordinate, in an effort to minimize potentially spurious relationships. The variables we controlled for were age (measured in years), job tenure (measured in months), organizational tenure (measured in months), and supervisor–subordinate relationship tenure (measured in months). 3. 6. Analytical approach In both samples in this study, supervisors' coworker relationship con? ict responses were used as predictors of subordinate outcomes (i. . , cross-level main effect). Thus, a single supervi sor coworker relationship con? ict rating was used as the predictor variable for multiple subordinates. As a result, for these variables there was no within-supervisor variance and all of the variance was between supervisors (i. e. , ICCs were 1. 00). Additionally, supervisors provided ratings on certain scales (e. g. , work effort and OCB) for multiple subordinates, thus resulting in a supervisor effect (e. g. , ICC1s for OCB of . 11 in sample 1 and . 13 and sample 2, and ICC2s of . 48 in sample 1 and . 51 in sample 2).To account for the supervisor-level effect in our data, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM: Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2004) with grand-mean centering was used to carry out our analyses. In the HLM analyses involving supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, this variable was included as a Level 2 variable (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong & Congdon, 2004). To test Hypotheses 1–2, there were four steps. In the ? rst step, we entered the four control va riables. In the second step we entered the Level 2 variable of supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, and it was here that we tested Hypothesis 1.In the third step, we entered the Level 1 moderator variable, LMX. In the fourth step, we entered the cross-level interaction term formed between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and LMX. It was in this step that we tested Hypothesis 2. To test the abusive supervision-outcome and mediation hypotheses (3 and 4), we conducted Baron and Kenny's (1986) threestep procedure. The HLM equations are available from the ? rst author request. 4. Results The means, standard deviations, and correlation matrix for the variables in this study are provided in Table 1 for Sample 1 and Table 2 for Sample 2.In both samples abusive supervision was signi? cantly correlated with supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict, as well as our dependent variables. Given that a few of the correlations between our focal variables were h igh, we elected to run a series of con? rmatory factor analyses (CFA) on the scales used in our study to ensure that they were independent and that the items produced the expected factor structures. These analyses were run on both samples separately. To conduct our CFAs, we used LISREL 8. 80, a covariance matrix as input, and a maximum-likelihood estimation.We elected to conduct our CFA analyses using composite indicators rather than items due to the large number of items and our moderate sample sizes. To create our composite indicators, we assigned items based on factor loadings from an exploratory factor analysis (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994; Eddleston, Viega, & Powell, 2006). Speci? cally, for our four-item scales we combined the two items with the highest and lowest factor loadings to the ? rst indicator and the remaining two items to the second indicator. For the ? ve-item scales we created the ? st indicator as described above and included the remaining three items on the secon d indicator. For our six-item scale we paired the highest and lowest loading item to create the ? rst indicator and then repeated this process for the remaining two indicators. Finally, for the LMX scale we used the four subscales (loyalty, contribution, professional respect, and affect) as composite indicators. Our approach resulted in 15 indicators for our 6 scales. 1016 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables in Sample 1.Variable 1. Abusive supervision 2. Sup. coworker con? ict 3. Leader–member exchange (LMX) 4. Work effort 5. OCB 6. LMX affect 7. LMX contribution 8. LMX loyalty 9. LMX professional respect 10. Age 11. Job tenure 12. Organizational tenure 13. Relationship tenure Mean 1. 31 3. 03 3. 92 4. 03 3. 87 3. 86 4. 10 3. 69 4. 03 41. 68 3. 38 5. 22 1. 99 SD . 57 1. 02 . 77 . 79 . 72 . 97 . 68 . 84 1. 09 11. 1 3. 88 5. 23 2. 02 1 . 77 . 21? ? . 67 ? . 27 ? . 29 .60 .36 .69 .62 .10 . 10 . 05 . 25 2 . 95 ? .11 ? .20? ? . 18? ? . 05 . 04 . 19? ? . 14 . 01 . 23? .01 . 17 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .76 . 3 .35 .91 .77 .83 .90 ? . 00 . 05 . 08 ? .00 .86 . 40 .28 .22? .35 .28 .03 ? .00 . 10 . 00 .65 . 27 .22? .33 .35 .01 ? .03 . 05 . 12 .92 . 62 .68 .79 ? . 02 . 11 . 11 . 04 .75 . 56 .58 .11 . 05 . 11 . 04 .74 . 64 ? . 04 ? .01 . 05 ? .11 .94 ? .03 . 02 . 01 . 02 – . 35 .39 .26 – . 69 .48 – . 49 Note: Values in italics on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance explained which must be larger than all zero-order correlations in the row and column in which they appear to demonstrate discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).N = 121. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. We began by estimating a six-factor solution, with each factor representing a scale in our study. Fit indices, shown in Table 3, indicate that the six-factor model ? t the data. To verify that the six-factor structure was the best representation of our data, we estimated three alternative models and compared them to our baseline model via chi-square difference tests. The alternative models estimated included two ? ve-factor models and a unidimensional model. The alternative models were created by combining scales that had strong correlations to form a larger factor.The ? rst alternative model combined abusive supervision and LMX into one factor while the second combined OCB and work effort. A description of each alternative model and the CFA results are offered in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the chi-square difference test results support the six-factor structure as originally designed. To further explore the discriminant validity of our scales we followed the procedure outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981) and calculated the square root of the average variance explained for each of the scales in our study.This value, which we present on the diagonal in Tables 1 and 2, represents the variance accounted for by the items that com pose the scale. To demonstrate discriminant validity, this value must exceed the corresponding latent variable correlations in the same row and column. If this condition is met, then we have evidence that the variance shared between any two constructs is less than the average variance explained by the items that compose the scale (i. e. , discriminant validity). As shown in Tables 1 and 2, this condition is met for all of the scales used in our study.The HLM results predicting abusive supervision are shown in Tables 4 (for Sample 1) and 5 (for Sample 2) and the HLM results investigating abusive supervision as a mediator and/or predictor are provided in Tables 6 and 7. First describing our interaction results in Table 4, step 1 reveals that relationship tenure (? = . 08, p b . 05) was the only control variable signi? cantly associated with abusive supervision. Step 2 shows that supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict are positively and signi? cantly related to abusive su pervision (? = . 09, p b . 05).This result provides support for Hypothesis 1 in Sample 1. Step 3 in this analysis shows that LMX was negatively associated with abusive supervision (? = ?. 48, p b . 01). Finally, step 4 shows that the interaction term between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and LMX was negatively and signi? cantly related to abusive Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables in Sample 2. Variable 1. Abusive supervision 2. Sup. coworker con? ict 3. LMX12 (overall) 4. Work effort 5. OCB 6. LMX affect 7. LMX contribution 8. LMX loyalty 9.LMX professional respect 10. Age 11. Job tenure 12. Organizational tenure 13. Relationship tenure Mean 1. 32 2. 42 4. 04 4. 31 4. 31 4. 04 4. 15 3. 78 4. 19 45. 86 6. 55 11. 16 6. 08 SD . 58 . 76 . 60 . 73 . 67 . 78 . 56 . 78 . 95 6. 89 2. 66 4. 37 2. 12 1 . 92 . 15? ? . 55 ? . 26 ? . 21? ? . 53 .05 ? .52 ? . 57 .04 . 02 . 01 ? .01 2 . 94 ? .04 ? .03 ? .19? ? . 03 ? .06 ? .02 ? . 02 ? .15 ? .09 ? .07 . 00 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .92 . 09 . 05 . 84 .53 .83 .86 ? . 07 . 08 . 05 . 07 .87 . 72 ? . 01 ? .03 . 18? .11 ? .03 ? .00 . 03 ? .02 .85 . 01 ? .13 . 09 . 13 ? .13 . 1 ? .05 . 07 .88 . 28 .56 .69 ? . 10 . 05 ? .03 . 00 .71 . 38 .22? .08 . 16* . 18? .15 .84 . 59 ? . 08 . 03 . 03 . 01 .95 ? .06 . 04 . 01 . 08 – . 14 . 23 .18? – . 61 .27 – . 26 Note: Values in italics on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance explained which must be larger than all zero-order correlations in the row and column in which they appear to demonstrate discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). N = 134. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 3 Alternative model test results.Model Sample 1 (N = 121) Baseline 6-factor model 5-factor combining abuse and LMX 5-factor combining work effort and OCB 1-factor Sample 2 (N = 134) Baseline 6-factor model 5-factor combining abuse and LMX 5- factor combining work effort and OCB 1-factor X2 102 196 127 706 df 75 80 80 90 X2diff dfdiff CFI . 98 . 95 . 97 . 59 NFI . 95 . 91 . 94 . 57 1017 RMSEA . 048 . 093 . 059 . 200 94 25 604 5 5 15 112 276 224 1177 75 80 80 90 164 112 1065 5 5 15 .98 . 93 . 93 . 47 .94 . 89 . 89 . 46 .056 . 125 . 107 . 280 Note: Abuse = abusive supervision, LMX = leader–member exchange, OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. p b . 001. supervision (? = ?. 12, p b . 01). Overall, the results in Table 5 (Sample 2) are similar. In step 1 none of the control variables were signi? cantly associated with the outcome, but in step 2, supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict were positively and signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 11, p b . 05), again supporting Hypothesis 1. Step 3 in Table 5 shows that LMX was negatively associated with abusive supervision (? = ?. 54, p b . 01). In the ? nal step, the supervisor reported coworker relationship con? ict ? LMX interaction t erm was negatively and signi? antly related to abusive supervision (? = ? .29, p b . 05). To determine support for our interaction hypothesis, we graphed the two signi? cant moderating effects. We did so by plotting two slopes, one at one standard deviation below and one at one standard deviation above the mean (Stone & Hollenbeck, 1989). Figs. 2 (for Sample 1) and 3 (for Sample 2) illustrate the signi? cant interactions and show that the positive relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision were stronger when LMX relationship quality was lower.Additionally, we calculated simple slopes for each of our interactions. In sample 1, we found that the slope of the low LMX line was signi? cant (t = 2. 00, p b . 05), whereas the slope of the high LMX line was not signi? cant. Similar to sample 1, in sample 2 the slope of the low LMX was signi? cant (t = 2. 11, p b . 05), but the slope of the high LMX line was not signi? cant. In total, t hese results provide support for Hypothesis 2 in both samples. Tables 6 and 7 provide the results of our mediation analyses. First discussing the results from Sample 1 shown in Table 6, supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ct was signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 09, p b . 05) (which ful? lls one of Baron and Kenny's (1986) mediation requirements) and to OCB (? = ? .08, p b . 10) and work effort (? = ?. 14, p b . 05) (ful? lling another mediation requirement). Steps 2c and 3c show that when both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are entered into the equation, the coworker relationship con? ict variable is no longer signi? cant. In particular, the gammas for supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict predicting OCB dropped from ?. 08 to ?. 6 and for predicting work effort dropped from ?. 14 to ? .11. However, abusive supervision is signi? cantly and positively related to OCB (? = ?. 37, p b . 01) and signi ? cantly and negatively related to work effort (? = ?. 27, p b . 05). Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported in Sample 1. In terms of the mediation results, the results from Baron and Kenny's (1986) three-step procedure show that abusive supervision fully mediated the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and OCB and partially mediated the relationship with work effort. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported in Sample 1.Table 4 Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting abusive supervision in Sample 1. Step 1 Control variables: Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Independent variable Sup-rated coworker con? ict (A) Moderator: LMX (B) Interaction term: A? B ? R2 . 00 . 00 ? .01 . 08? Step 2 . 00 ? .00 ? .01 . 07 . 09? Step 3 . 00 . 00 ? .00 . 07? .05? ? . 48 Step 4 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 . 06? .05 ? .46 ? . 12 .02 .02 .02 .45 Note: Sup-rated coworker con? ict = supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, LMX = leader–member exchange. N = 121. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. 018 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 5 Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting abusive supervision in Sample 2. Step 1 Control variables: Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Independent variable Sup-rated coworker con? ict (A) Moderator: LMX (B) Interaction term: A? B ? R2 . 00 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 Step 2 . 01 .00 ? .00 ? .00 . 11? Step 3 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 . 00 . 09? ? . 54 Step 4 . 00 . 00 ? .00 . 00 . 13? ? . 55 ? . 29 .05 .01 .01 .35 Note: Sup-rated coworker con? ict = supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ct, LMX = leader–member exchange. N = 134. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. Next we turn to the HLM results presented for Sample 2 in Table 7. This table shows that supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict was signi? cantly related to abusive supervision in step 1b (which passes Baron and Kenny's (1986) ? rst step) and OCB (in step 2b), but not work effort (in ste p 3b). These results pass the ? rst two steps for mediation for OCB, but not work effort. Table 7 also reveals that abusive supervision is negatively and signi? cantly related to OCB (? = ?. 26, p b . 05) in step 2c, and signi? antly and negatively related to work effort (? = ?. 39, p b . 01) in step 3c. Thus, Hypothesis 3, which was supported in Sample 1, is also supported in Sample 2. Step 2c shows that when both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are entered into the equation, the coworker relationship con? ict variable is no longer a signi? cant predictor of OCB. In terms of the mediation results, the results from Baron and Kenny's (1986) three-step procedure show that abusive supervision mediated the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ct and OCB, but not work effort. Thus, Hypothesis 4, which was supported for both dependent variables in Sample 1, was only supported for OCB in Sample 2. 5. Discussion The pu rpose of this study was to further our knowledge of the predictors and outcomes of abusive supervision. We pursued this goal by examining supervisor reports of relationship con? ict with their coworkers as a predictor of subordinate-rated abusive supervision, and LMX quality as a situational variable in? uencing this relationship. Additionally, we examined the outcomes of supervisor-rated OCB nd work effort and found that abusive supervision fully mediated the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and OCB in both samples and the outcomes of work effort in one sample. Returning to our theoretical arguments, we found that displaced aggression and LMX theories provide useful lenses for discussing predictors and outcomes of abusive supervision. Coworker relationship con? ict at any level is a potent source of stress and frustration as it impedes the achievement of goals and the attainment of desired outcomes (e. g. , Thomas, 1976).Like past abusive s upervision research (Tepper, Duffy, Henle & Lambert, 2006), our results suggest that some supervisors will resort to abusive behaviors against their employees as a means of coping with these consequences. This study advances existing research by explicitly examining situations where subordinates are not the logical target of retaliation (i. e. , they are not the source of the con? ict). Because subordinates are an easy and accessible target, however, having less power and less of an ability to retaliate, they make relatively safe candidates for abuse from frustrated supervisors.Table 6 Hierarchical linear modeling mediation results in Sample 1. DV = abusive supervision Step 1a Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision Note: OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. N = 121. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. .00 . 00 ? .01 . 08? Step 1b . 00 ? .00 ? .01 . 07 . 09? Step 2a . 00 ? .02 . 00 . 05 DV = OCB DV = work effort Step 2b . 00 ? .01 ? .00 . 05 ? .08+ Step 2c . 00 ? .01 ? .00 . 07 ? .06 ? .27? Step 3a ? .00 ? .02 . 02 . 00 Step 2b ? .00 ? .01 . 02 . 01 ? .14? Step 3c . 0 ? .01 . 01 . 04 . 11 ? .37 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 7 Hierarchical linear modeling mediation results in Sample 2. DV = abusive supervision Step 1a Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision Note: OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. N = 134. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. .00 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 Step 1b . 01 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 . 11? Step 2a ? .01 ? .00 . 00 . 00 DV = OCB DV = work effort 1019 Step 2b ? .01 ? .00 . 00 . 00 ? .13? Step 2c ? .01 . 0 ? .00 . 00 ? .09 ? .26? Step 3a ? .00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 Step 3b ? .00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 ? .03 Step 3c . 00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 . 02 ? .39 Additionally, when supervisors experience coworker relationship con? ict, our results indicate that they are most l ikely to abuse subordinates with whom they have low quality LMX relationships. This ? nding appears to support our argument that supervisors will focus their abusive behaviors on those employees in low quality exchanges in order to shield their high quality relationships from the detrimental effects of abusive supervision.In this way, supervisors may reason that abusive behaviors allow them to vent frustration while minimizing the negative in? uence of this coping behavior on their most valued employees. Naturally, there are ? aws in this method of coping, most notably that the performance levels of abused employees will likely suffer, causing added strain and frustration for other employees and the supervisors themselves. Among supervisors who make the problematic choice to cope through abuse, however, it appears that employees in low-quality relationships are the most likely targets.We also extended abusive supervision research with our ? ndings indicating that this variable is re lated to the outcomes of OCB and work effort. These ? ndings are noteworthy as they extend the nomological network of outcomes related to abusive supervision, and because both outcomes were supervisor-rated, which helps to minimize common source bias concerns (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Additionally, in sample 1 we found that abusive supervision served as an intermediary mechanism explaining the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ct and both consequences examined, and that there was also mediation on the outcome of OCB in sample 2. These results are important as they begin to answer the questions related to how situational supervisor variables, such as coworker relationship con? ict, ultimately are translated into subordinate outcomes. Surprisingly, we did not ? nd support for the work effort mediation hypothesis in Sample 2. A post hoc explanation for these insigni? cant ? ndings may relate to the demographic composition of th e samples. Sample 2 was different from Sample 1 for both subordinates and supervisors.It was primarily male, the average age was higher, and average job and organizational tenure were both more than double (except for supervisor job tenure) those in the ? rst sample. Although it is possible to deduce explanations as to how these differences might have in? uenced our results, such atheoretical logic would be overly speculative. Thus, as we suggest below, we encourage replicative research in additional samples that would allow for a more systematic assessment of these, or other, sample-speci? c characteristics. 5. 1. Contributions These ? dings make several contributions to the extant research on abusive supervision and LMX relationships. First, they build support for the notion of displaced abusive supervision and undermine a potential alternative explanation. In Tepper's (2007) review of abusive supervision literature, he concluded that supervisors' perceptions of organization-level factors, such as Fig. 2. Moderating effect of LMX on the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision in Sample 1. 1020 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023Fig. 3. Moderating effect of LMX on the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision in Sample 2. injustice and contract violation, can trigger abuse toward individual targets (i. e. , subordinates). He argued that this phenomenon might be explained by displaced aggression logic, in that subordinates serve as safe abuse targets even if the abuse is unlikely to resolve the perceptions triggering the desire to be abusive. An alternative, although somewhat tenuous, explanation is that these negative perceptions in? ence animosity toward the overall organization and that supervisors justify the abuse of subordinates who are seen as complicit in the perceived negative aspects of the organization. Our ? ndings suggest that this alternative basis of justi? cation would not adequately explain displaced abusive supervision. Looking beyond generalized organizational perceptions, we found that even frustration stemming from speci? c, identi? able non-subordinate sources (i. e. , supervisors' coworkers) might translate into abuse toward subordinates.This suggests that abusive supervision may serve as a â€Å"self-defeating† coping mechanism (e. g. , Baumeister & Scher, 1988), akin to mechanisms such as problem drinking and procrastination, in that it seeks short-term stress-reduction (e. g. , through emotional venting) in a harmful way that does not address the true source of the underlying problem (e. g. , con? ict with peers). We also expand on Tepper's conclusion, again stemming from his 2007 review of abusive supervision research, that subordinate characteristics in? uence the likelihood that they will experience abuse.As in the present study, Tepper (2007) cited victimization research to argue that subordinates who appear overly provocative or passive put themselves at a heightened risk for abuse. Expanding on the latter idea, we argued and observed that employees in low quality LMX relationships, who we expect demonstrate relatively high levels of passivity and vulnerability, report higher levels of abuse. This suggests that instead of identifying each of the potential subordinate characteristics that can incite abuse, a more parsimonious approach might be to look at broad relationship variables such as LMX that can be viewed as re? cting the aggregate impact of these individual characteristics. This conclusion also adds to LMX research by revealing an additional consequence of low-quality LMX relationships. In addition to the wide body of research showing that low-quality LMX subordinates experience outcomes such as fewer rewards, lower resource levels, and reduced job satisfaction (e. g. , Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne, 1997), this study suggests a more se rious potential consequence in the form of victimization by abusive supervisors.Additionally, our results, and the fact that most were replicated across the two samples, demonstrate the utility of multi-level models for predicting employee consequences of abusive supervision. Abusive supervision is an inherently multi-level phenomenon and this study shows that insights into some causes of abuse, such as con? ict levels between supervisors, exist that cannot be assessed from subordinate self-reports. Similarly, it identi? es supervisor-rated subordinate outcomes of abusive supervision (effort levels and OCB) that are dif? cult to assess with self-reports due to social desirability and common source bias concerns.Further, these supervisor-rated effects provide some indication that abusive supervisors are at least indirectly aware of the selfdefeating consequences of abuse. Our data do not tell us whether supervisors consciously related their abuse to lower levels of employee effort an d citizenship behavior. Their awareness of lower levels among the abused subordinates, however, suggests that a degree of denial would be necessary for the supervisors to overlook these cause–effect relationships. Although existing research has not, to our knowledge, explicitly stated that supervisors are unaware of the consequences of abusive behavior, this ? ding suggests that future research on preventing abuse might bene? t from focusing not on why supervisors view the behavior as acceptable, but why they engage in it despite an apparent awareness of these consequences. 5. 2. Limitations In addition to the aforementioned strengths and contributions, there are limitations that we must acknowledge to properly interpret the study's results. First we acknowledge that the theoretical framework we have developed is not the only logical explanation for the hypothesized and observed relationships.For example, it is plausible that the link between supervisors' coworker relationshi p con? ict and abusive supervision is less cognitive than we have argued. Instead of selectively choosing subordinates as a low-risk target for venting frustration, it might be that some supervisors simply possess traits that predispose K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1021 them toward con? ict and abusive behaviors (with higher levels of abuse directed at low quality members). Examples of such traits might include negative affectivity or hostile attribution styles (Douglas & Martinko, 2001).An investigation of these possibilities would be useful in forming a more comprehensive understanding of the empirical relationships observed in the present study. In terms of methodological limitations, survey length constraints required us to use a reduced version of the abusive supervision scale. Even though we chose items that tapped into the full set of behaviors and found an extremely high correlation between our shortened measure and the full scale , this may still be viewed as a limitation. Another limitation is that we were unable to measure causality.Thus, there is the potential that our relationships actually have reverse causality or that variables predict each other in a recursive manner. This is particularly true regarding the association between LMX perceptions and abusive supervision. Our results suggest that supervisors are more abusive toward some employees than others and that this difference is associated with variations in subordinates' LMX scores. It can be argued, and is indeed very likely, that an abused employee would report lower LMX scores because of the abuse.The ? nding that supervisors are selective in their abuse targets suggests that some criterion is evaluated before targets are chosen and we have argued that preexisting LMX relationship qualities could serve as this criterion. Our design does not allow us to make this claim de? nitively, however. Similarly, it may be that abusive supervision is not t he predictor of work effort, but that insuf? cient effort by subordinates promotes higher levels of abusive supervision or that both variables in? uence each other in a cyclical manner.We are particularly sensitive to the argument that there may be a feedback loop between abusive supervision and the outcome variables, such that abuse reduces subordinates' effort and citizenship levels, and this reduction provokes further abuse, although the design of the study did not allow us to test this possibility. Along a similar line, it could be that abusive supervision toward subordinates is actually the cause of the supervisors' con? ict among peers. We hope that future studies will be designed to better answer these causality questions.There are also limitations associated with the sampling of public, white-collar organizations. Different organizations (e. g. , private, military, blue-collar) have different rules and norms governing behavior and it is likely that the abusive supervisory be haviors studied would be more or less permissible, and therefore more or less common, in different organizational settings. 5. 3. Directions for future research This study's ? ndings suggest a number of directions for future research. First, we hope future researchers will examine our hypotheses in other, more diverse samples.Although we examined two separate organizations, it is necessary to examine additional samples to better establish the generalizability or boundary conditions of our relationships. A second suggestion is to examine the relationships in this study with a longitudinal research design. The extant research on abusive supervision, including this study, has primarily relied on cross-sectional designs. Although telling, these studies leave out situations and behaviors that impact subordinates over time. In the case of both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ct and abusive supervision, it may be that supervisors and subordinates learn to cope with these s ituations, and become accustomed to them. Conversely, it could be that these situations and behaviors become worse as they accumulate over time (Harris, Kacmar, & Witt, 2005) as argued by Tepper (2000) and as noted in our discussion of cyclical relationships between abuse and behavioral outcomes in the previous section. Another avenue for future research is to conduct additional multi-level investigations to determine how supervisor experiences and situations impact their subordinates.In this study we examined supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict, but it also would be interesting to investigate the effect of supervisors' supervisor relationship con? ict, abusive supervision, LMX, team member exchange, and perceived organizational support (Erdogan & Enders, 2007; Tangirala, Green, & Ramanujam, 2007) as these variables are likely to have â€Å"trickle-down† effects on employee outcomes. Additionally, the aforementioned implication that supervisors might be aware of the consequences of abusive supervision suggests that a multilevel, or at least supervisor-level, focus on understanding the justi? ation process might provide insight into interventions for preventing such behavior. It would also be interesting to investigate personality characteristics, such as Machiavellianism, entitlement, and narcissism, of supervisors and subordinates and how these variables are related to abuse (Harvey & Harris, 2010; Kiazad, Restubog, Zagenczyk, Kiewitz, & Tang, 2010). Finally, we examined LMX from the perspective of the member, but it would be insightful to investigate leader reports of the LMX quality with their subordinates and how this rating interacts with supervisor coworker con? ict. 5. 4. Practical implications Before discussing speci? practical implications from this study, it should be noted that the overarching implication from this and most of the existing body of research on abusive supervision is that abusive supervision is detrimental to a ll parties. It is stressful for victims and hurts organizational performance and a supervisor's effectiveness by negatively affecting desirable outcomes (see Tepper, 2007) such as increased levels of effort and OCB. Employees may feel intimidated and afraid to report the behavior of abusive supervisors, however, making it dif? cult for organizational leaders to identify and eliminate these abusive managers.Because of the dif? culty in reducing existing levels of abuse, preventative techniques for reducing the likelihood of abusive supervision are advisable. The results of this study suggest that one such technique is for organizational leaders to observe and mediate con? icts between supervisory employees, thereby removing an antecedent of abusive behaviors. Additionally, because the supervisors in our study were more likely to abuse employees with whom they shared low-quality relationships, an organization-wide focus on the development of strong leader–member relationships m ight foster a climate where there are few 022 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 desirable targets for abuse. We acknowledge that neither of these suggestions (i. e. , mediating supervisor con? icts and promoting strong leader–member relationships) are simple tasks. We suggest, however, that a continuous focus on these goals would consume far less time and energy than dealing with the consequences of abusive supervision. 6

Standards of Mgss

STANDARDS FOR THE MDGs I TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover PageI Table of ContentsII BodyIII ReferencesIV II THE MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS What are MDGs? Following the adoption of the United Nations Millenium Declaration, the Millenium Development Goals was established in 2000. Because of its extensive goals, the MDGs are being assisted by government organizations in trying to achieve those goals, among them are the following: the United Nations Millenium Campaign, the Millenium Promise Alliance Inc. the Global Poverty Project, the Micah Challenge, the Youth in Action EU Programme, â€Å"Cartoons in Action† video project, and the 8 Visions of Hope global art project. The main goal of the MDGs is to effect development by improving social and economic conditions in the world’s poorest countries. These are derived from earlier international development targets, which were officially established after the Millenium Summit in 2000, where the United Nations Millenium Declaration was adopted.These MDGs were developed from the eight chapters of Millennium Declaration, which was signed in September, 2000. The effect was that developing nations were not seen as left to achieve the MDG goals by themselves, but rather as a partner in the developing-developed compact to reduce world poverty. There are eight goals with 21 targets, and a series of measurable health indicators and economic indicators for each target. However, there are still drawbacks in the MDGs which includes shortsightedness where analytical power is concerned and the justification behind the chosen objectives.Because of the joint responsibility of developing and developed countries for achieving the MDGs, the possibility of it becoming a success continuously increases and is still reinforced by their 189-country support. At present, there is no uniformity as far as progress towards reaching the goals is concerned. The goal of empowering women has progressed towards the MDGs, and there is a strong enc ouragement to increase emphasis on gended mainstreaming debelopment policies and collecting data based on gender.As a result, a major conference was held at the UN headquarters in New York on 20-22 September 2010 to review progress, with five years left to the 2015 deadline. There were new commitments on women’s and children’s health, and major new initiatives in the worldwide battle against poverty, hunger and disease. It is obvious that developed countries continuously provide aid for the achievement of the MDGs which have been rising over the recent years, and has shown that more than half is towards debt relief owed by poor countries.The Australian government itself committed to providing 0. 5% of GNI in International Development Assistance by 2015-2016. One of the improvements provided by the MDGs is the provision of more health services to the developing countries. Researchers suggest that developed countries should treat global health inequalities and humanitari an issue being a part of national strategy. During the 2010 Summit, member states initiated steps towards advancing the Post-2015 Development Agenda and are now developing a process of open, inclusive consultations on the post-2015 agenda.Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon appointed 26 civil society, private sector, and government leaders from all regions to a high-level panel to advise on the global development agenda beyond 2015. An organization which aims to increase support to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and seek coalition for partners of action is the role of the United Nations Millennium Campaign. UN Goals is dedicated to spreading knowledge of the millennium goals through many different means by means of various internet and offline awareness campaigns. Ethical Bases for the Establishment of MDGsThe Following are the eight goals of the MDGs: * Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; * Achieve universal primary education; * Promote gender equality and empower women; * Re duce child mortality; * Improve maternal health; * Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; * Ensure environmental sustainability; and * Develop a global partnership for development UNDP assists people at all levels of society in helping to build nations that can withstand crisis, and work for, and sustain the kind of growth for the improvement of the quality of life for everyone.The focus is to help countries to build and share solutions to achieve Poverty Reduction and the Millenium Development Goals, Democratic governance, Crisis Prevention and Recovery, Environment and Energy for Sustainable Development. In Uruguay for example, an extensive children’s health program has reduced rates of malnutrition, prematurity, low birth weight and other markers in the department of Canelones. In Darfur, Sudan, a rule-of-law programme is helping promote and improve equal access to justice. In China, farmers are being trained to adapt farming techniques to international trading stand ard, providing them with greater profits.In Brazil, eco-stoves that retain heat longer and are easier to oversee, provide indigenous people to lead healthier lives. According to the 2013 Human Development Report, there is a profound shift in global dynamics driven by the fast-rising new powers of the developing world and its long-term implications for human development. UNDP can be felt in more than 170 countries and territories and decades of concrete development experience in countries ranging from fragile States to middle-income countries like Brazil and Indonesia.These and other developments qualify the MDGs to answer the call for a better and more sustainable future. * Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger There is always the realization that in the midst of our comfort zones, the stark reality exists where in some parts of the world, people are living in extreme poverty. Much to the desire of those who have more, like the developed countries, still, it lowers the morale to see this extreme poverty manifested in different forms, like the number of displaced refugees that remain high, despite the repatriation in 2011. Achieve Universal Primary Education We cannot do away with the reality that young adolescents from poor and rural households are more likely to be out of school. Everyone has that moral obligation to solve the problem of others, even if we think they can also be capable of helping themselves. * Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women We know that there are already women representations in the governments of nations but it is a fact that the pace is slow. This MDG effort aims to answer the ethical question of gender equality. Reduce child Mortality Every child has a right to be born, nurtured and nourished until maturity. However, the fact remains that in some parts of the world, the rate of child mortality is alarmingly high. We are compelled to do our best to address this problem through the ethical basis of concern. We do exist not only fo r ourselves but for the less fortunate others as well. * Improve Maternal Health Women are the strength of society. Their health are most important so much so that they are the determinants of the rise and fall of any society.Their roles as mothers entail that they should be in their best of health. Thus, an ethical calling for maternal concern is likewise being answere by the MDGs. * Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Other Diseases Universal concern suggests that humans should continue to sustain on earth. Thus, there is a need to improve advancements in medicine, health and technology. This is not a matter of ordinary necessity, but one of humanitarian consideration that should be inherent in each one of us. * Ensure Environmental SustainabilityThis is likewise another moral obligation that needs regular attention. * Develop a Global Partnership for Development Efforts to sustain development is not the job of a single organization. People of all ages from all walks of life must unders tand they should treat themselves as stewards of wealth and nature and thus, it is pertinent that each person must regard mimself or herself as a contributing partner to the goals of the MDG. REFERENCES * http://www. undp. org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview/mdg_goals/mdg3/ * http://www. undp. rg/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview/mdg_goals/mdg2/ * http://www. undp. org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview/mdg_goals/mdg1/ * http://www. undp. org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview. html * Halve by 2015 the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water United Nations Millennium Development Goals website, retrieved 16 June 2009. * http://www. oecd. org/dac/theoecdandthemillenniumdevelopmentgoals. htm * MDGs†. YouTube. Retrieved 2012-10-14. â€Å"Welcome to the Development Education online Depository! â€Å". Developmenteducation. nfo. * Subramanian, Savitha; Joseph Naimoli, Toru Matsubayashi, David Peters (2011). â€Å"Do We Have the Right Models for Scalingà ‚   Up Health Services to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals? â€Å". BMC Health Services Research  11  (336). *   Ã¢â‚¬Å"Goal  :: Improve Maternal Health†. Mdg Monitor. 2012-10-18. * â€Å"United Nations Millennium Development Goals†. Un. org. 2008-05-20. 2012-10-18 * â€Å"Goal  :: Develop a Global Partnership for Development†. Mdg Monitor. 2012-10-18 * â€Å"Goal: Tracking the Millennium Development Goals†. MDG Monitor. 1 November 2007. 2012-10-14. IV

XYY Syndrome Essays - Syndromes, Cytogenetics, Free Essays

XYY Syndrome Essays - Syndromes, Cytogenetics, Free Essays XYY Syndrome subject = Intro to Biology title = XYY Syndrome XYY Males XYY Syndrome is a rare genetic disorder which affects males due to an extra Y chromosome. Healthy males have 46 chromosomes including one X and one Y chromosome. Men with XYY syndrome have 47 chromosomes, two of which are Y chromosomes. It is not known why the extra Y chromosome occurs. The disorder is present at birth and is estimated to occur in one out of every one thousand live births. In very rare instances, the syndrome has been passed from father to son, but in most cases heredity cannot be established. The characteristics of XYY syndrome are often very subtle and do not indicate and serious chromosomal disorder. Therefore, males with this condition are frequently undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. The primary symptoms include tall or very tall height which becomes evident at the age of five or six, and severe cystic acne during adolescence. Lower than average intelligence and/or behavioral problems, such as an explosive temper, aggressive or defiant actions, or sometimes antisocial behavior are other symptoms. Some individuals with this disorder may also have language difficulties or psychosexual problems. XYY Syndrome is often undiagnosed until tests for other medical reasons are performed. Other than being unusually tall and/or having behavioral problems, in many cases, these boys or men appear normal. Physical characteristics of XYY Syndrome may include an exceptionally long head with a slightly protrusive forehead, long hands and feet, long ears, mild indentation of the breastbone, and/or large teeth. Poor chest and shoulder muscle development is also common. Even though males with this syndrome are large, they tend to be weak and uncoordinated. Some may have a fine intentional tremor, such as shaking hands when the try to drink a glass of water. Occasionally, a bony formation across the joints in the two bones of the forearm resulting in the stiffening of the affected joints may occur. Other occasional symptoms are undescended testicles, a small penis, or an opening located on the underside of the penis. For a long time it was thought that XYY Syndrome individuals had aggressive tendencies often associated with criminal behavior due to the extra Y chromosome. Epidemiological studies suggest that one out of every 35 institutionalized male juvenile delinquents has XYY Syndrome. However, it is now believed by some researchers that this behavior is not due to the extra Y chromosome, but rather to the lower than average intelligence and education levels of these men. More research is needed to understand the role of this chromosomal abnormality on behavior.

Top 8 Reasons Non-Teachers Can Never Understand Our Job

Top 8 Reasons Non-Teachers Can Never Understand Our Job Believe it or not, I once had an older family member approach me at a party and say, â€Å"Oh, I want my son to talk to you about teaching because he wants a career that’s easy and not stressful.† I don’t even remember my response to this illogical and bizarre comment, but obviously this lady’s cluelessness made a major impression on me. I’m still confounded by this idea even ten years after the incident occurred. You may have been on the receiving end of similar comments, such as: You’re so lucky to have so much vacation time, especially summers off. Teachers have it so easy!You only have 20 students in your class. That’s not so bad!It must be so easy to teach elementary school. The children don’t have attitudes when they’re so young. All of these ignorant and annoying comments just go to show that people who aren’t in education simply can’t understand all of the work that goes into being a classroom teacher. Even many administrators seem to have forgotten about all of the trials and tribulations we face on the front lines of education. Summers Aren’t Enough Recovery Time I do believe that every teacher appreciates our vacation times. However, I know from experience that a summer vacation isn’t nearly enough time to recover (emotionally and physically) from the rigors of a typical school year. Similar to childbirth and moving houses, only time away can offer the necessary respite (and memory failure) that allows us to gather the strength and optimism required to attempt teaching anew in the fall. Besides, summers are shrinking and many teachers use this valuable time to earn advanced degrees and attend training courses. In the Primary Grades, We Deal With Gross Bathroom-related Issues Even a high school teacher could never understand some of the crises related to bodily functions that a typical K-3 teacher has to deal with on a regular basis. Potty accidents (and more instances too disgusting to reiterate here) are something that we can’t shy away from. I’ve had third grade students who still wear diapers and let me tell you – it’s stinky. Is there any amount of money or vacation time worth cleaning up vomit from the classroom floor with your own two hands? We’re Not Just Teachers The word â€Å"teacher† just doesn’t cover it. We’re also nurses, psychologists, recess monitors, social workers, parental counselors, secretaries, copy machine mechanics, and almost literally parents, in some instances, to our students. If you’re in a corporate setting, you can say, â€Å"That’s not in my job description.† When you’re a teacher, you have to be ready for everything and anything to be thrown at you on a given day. And there’s no turning it down. Everything’s Always Our Fault Parents, principals, and society in general blame teachers for every problem under the sun. We pour our hearts and souls into teaching and 99.99% of teachers are the most generous, ethical, and competent workers you can find. We have the best of intentions in a messed-up education system. But somehow we still get the blame. But we keep teaching and trying to make a difference. Our Job is Really Serious   When there’s a mistake or a problem, it’s often heart-breaking and important. In the corporate world, a glitch might mean a spreadsheet needs to be redone or a little money was wasted. But in education, the problems go much deeper: a child lost on a field trip, students lamenting parents in jail, a little girl sexually assaulted on the walk home from school, a boy being raised by his great-grandmother because everyone else in his life abandoned him. These are true stories that I’ve had to witness. The pure human pain gets to you after awhile, especially if you’re a teacher out to fix everything. We can’t fix everything and that makes the problems we witness hurt all the more. Work Outside the School Day Sure, school only lasts 5-6 hours per day. But that’s all we’re paid for and the job is constant. Our homes are cluttered with work and we stay up til all hours grading papers and preparing for future lessons. Many of us take phone calls and emails from parents during our â€Å"personal† time. The problems of the day weigh heavy on our minds all night and all weekend. Zero Flexibility When You’re a Classroom Teacher When you work in an office, you can simply call in sick when you wake up unexpectedly ill on a given morning. But, it’s extremely hard to be absent from work when you are a teacher, especially if it happens without notice or at the last minute. It can take several hours to prepare the lesson plans for a substitute teacher which hardly seems worth it when you’re only going to be absent for five or six hours of classroom time. You might as well just go teach the class yourself, right? And dont forget the last one... Teaching is Physically and Emotionally Taxing To put it bluntly: Since bathroom breaks are hard to come by, it’s said that teachers have the highest incidences of urinary and colon problems. There are also issues with varicose veins from having to stand all day. Plus, all of the above difficulty factors, combined with the isolated nature of being the only adult in a self-contained classroom, make the job especially grueling over the long term. So for all you non-teachers out there, keep these factors in mind the next time you envy a teacher for her summers off or feel the urge to say something about teachers having it easy. There are some things about the profession that only teachers can understand, but hopefully this little gripe session has shed some light on the true nature of the job! And now that we’ve got most of the complaints out of the way, keep an eye out for a future article that will celebrate the positive side of teaching!

How to Get Good Grades in Business School

How to Get Good Grades in Business School Every business school works differently when it comes to grades. Some grading systems are based on instructional approaches. For example, lecture-based courses sometimes base grades on class assignments or test scores. Programs that use the case method, like Harvard School of Business, often base a percentage of your grade on classroom participation. In some cases, schools wont even award traditional grades. Yale School of Management, for example, has grading categories like Distinction, Proficient, Pass, and Fail. Other schools, like Wharton, request that professors keep average class GPAs below a certain number, ensuring that only a certain number of students will receive a perfect 4.0. How Important Are Grades in Business School? Before you begin worrying about grades too much, its important to note that GPA isnt really that important if youre an MBA student. Obviously, you want to be able to pass your class and do well, but when it comes down to it, MBA grades just aren’t as important as high school or undergraduate grades. Employers are willing to overlook soft grades for MBA grads who fit the company culture or excel in a particular area, such as leadership. If youre a student in an undergraduate business program, on the other hand, your GPA is important. A low undergraduate GPA can keep you out of a top-ranked graduate school. It can also affect your employment prospects, as employers are much more likely to ask about your class rank and success rate in a particular class. Tips for Getting Good Grades in Business School Determination is an important quality for all MBA students. Without it, you are going to have a hard time wading through the notoriously rigorous curriculum and keeping up with your cohorts. If you can keep your determination level high, your persistence will pay off with good grades or at least an A for effort - professors notice enthusiasm and effort and will find some way to reward it. A few other tips to help you get good grades in business school: Show up for class. You don’t need to attend every single class, but if you attend a small business program, your empty seat will be noticed. Since many business programs are teamwork-based, you will also be letting down your classmates when you do not pull your weight.Participate in class. Remember, participation can account for a large portion of your grade. If you don’t get involved in class discussion or at least look interested in class, you won’t fare well in a case-based curriculum or a course that emphasizes involvement.Learn to read fast. In two years of business school, you could read as many as 50 textbooks and 500 cases. Learning how to take in a lot of dry text in a short amount of time will save you time and allow you to focus on other work.Join or form a study group. Study group members can learn from one another. Making yourself accountable to a group can also keep you motivated and on track.Read case studies. A good case study/analysis combo is th e perfect way to learn how to answer questions in a business school class. If you know what topic you will be studying next week in class, prepare with a few case studies in private this week. Master time management. There is never enough time to get all of your work done in business school. The more you can learn and practice time management, the easier it will be for you to at least get to 90 percent of your work.Network with everyone. Grades are important, but networking is what will help you survive business school and thrive after graduation. Don’t sacrifice your time with other people for hours in the books.

Autobiograhy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Autobiograhy - Essay Example In this case, this was a situation when one of his subordinates arrived late for work that morning, as he tried to explain the manager shouted at him. However, this agitated the subordinate given since it was embracing to him since it was in the midst of other employees. The argument escalated, though it was resolved by assistant manager who had conflict management skills. The other case involved a conflict between groups during a project, whereby they were unable to agree on ways to assign themselves to various tasks. In fact, this had a significant impact on the project to an extent that it would have hampered the process of undertaking it. Nonetheless, the team leader of these groups had a conflict management skills and he was able to deal with the differences between these groups in a way that would facilitated their progress in accordance to their expectations. In conclusion, the cases that have been presented signify that importance of conflict management skill in working

Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Movie Review Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring - Movie Review Example The story is disintegrated into four parts where each part describes seasonality of the earth. These seasons show us how the Korean culture follows a systematic way of doing things. In each part, there is change of events as how the earth’s seasons revolutionize. The change in seasons shows the progressions and developments that occur in the Korean culture. Argumentation of the Movie The season spring is the supreme event that introduces the addressees to the story and takes the reader through the plot. The reader is introduced to an old monk who trains a youthful monk on the ways of Buddhist convictions. Training of the Buddhist convictions makes the reader understand that the Koreans are a religious society. The Koreans are a hard working society because the old monk labors through herding. The youthful monk has a complex time getting these skills because most of the time he is distracted by pleasure in torturing helpless creatures that are in the spring. This shows us that boys in the Korean society engage in mischief behavior like boys in any society. He decides to punish the young monk for his actions, and commands the young monk to tie a stone around his waist so that he can experience the suffering the animals undergo (Ebert 12). Punishing the young monk because of torturing helpless creatures shows us the Koreans like frogs and snakes. ... The Koreans also engage in romantic relationships at their teenage age, this is evident through the attraction of the young monk and the woman. The young woman is suffering from a disease that is not understood and she is brought to the old Buddhist for medications. This reveals that the Korean culture believes in traditional herbs for curing diseases (Ebert 22). The young monk and the woman continue with their intimate relationship and somehow her ailments are cured, these shows that expression of love in the Korean society is a form of medication. A period of fall is introduced to the reader, which is slightly superior to the season autumn. Koreans appreciate art and use it to communicate different messages, this is evidenced by the way the old monk engages in artistic work. He eventually notices a piece of newspaper reporting the killing of a young woman by his alleged lover and this brings a sense of violence in Korean culture. The old monk robotically suggests that the murdering was a due to jealousy of the lover. Korean culture argues that violent acts are associated with the civilized world. Infidelity is evident in the Korean culture because the young monk kills his wife for having an affair with another man. The young adult’s suffering is resultant of his actions, which are making him experience guiltiness. Koreans believes in the spirits because the old monk performs a ritual for purifying the young monk. The old monk tells the young adult to cut Korean characters on a tree with the knife he used in murdering the woman. There is organized law enforcement in Korean society as detectives arrive in the village to arrest the young adult and ferry him to a penitentiary (Ebert