Social Change Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Social Change - Term Paper Example er, in modern life and through almost all cultures is now subject to the ability of a cultural group to either create monetary value from their resources, or to hunt and gather from local resources, a type of survival that is all but lost as governments have taken over almost all lands across the world. In environments that are inhospitable to agricultural growth, the problem of hunger is frightening. However, hunger exists in urban environments in well developed countries just as readily as it does in undeveloped lands. Through repositioning the philosophical framework on human rights, charity, and food, the problem of global hunger could be ended through cooperation and sharing of resources. The ideal world would be one in which every person was given access to those aspects of existence that best supports their overall health, which would be food, health care, water, and housing. If those problems were eliminated, the minds that are stifled through a fight for survival that includes hunger and poor health would have the potential to develop and contribute to the world through innovation and intellectual pursuits. In a world where no one struggled for the basic survival problems, great creativity and innovation could come from unexpected resources which are now lost because the difficulty of life suppresses creative thought. The greatest losses to humanity are being realized by the number of people who are being lost because they are never given the tools with which to reach their full potential. As an example, imagine what might have happened if Steven Hawking had grown up in another time period where his illness had prevented his survival or in another place where lac k of health care had shortened his remarkably long life, considering the nature of his ALS which has a much shorter life expectancy. The same mind in a body that exists in a place with less quality food and health care may never have had the opportunity to contribute so significantly to the

Measurement of Time Spent Communicating Essay Example for Free

Measurement of Time Spent Communicating Essay The amount of time we spend communicating is outstanding. There have been multiple studies to find the actual amount of our waking lives spent communicating, and the percentage of time we spend in each division of communication. The article, Measurement of Time Spent Communicating, is the result of a communication study of employees of a research and development laboratory. The study was based on two techniques: direct observation, and questionnaires. How much time do people spend communicating at work? How much time do people spend using machines at work? This useful information can help to improve the amount of work done in a certain amount of time. If people spend more time communicating to get a job done, then our communication skills possibly need improvement. The talking people do is related with their work output. The same goes for machinery; if we spend more time in person-machine interaction, improving machinery would be the main advance to improving jobs. People were observed at one instance in time in offices of one person to five people, some at supervisory levels, laboratories, hallways, and conference rooms. The observation data was divided into to groups time spent communicating, and time spent working with equipment. These categories were subdivided in different types of communication activities, including face-to-face communication, telephone communication, reading, and writing, and different types of equipment uses, including lab equipment, office machinery, and an other category. Pre-tests showed the three trained clerks could classify the behavior of the employees reliably. Sampling moments were random and unbiased, only avoiding break times and everyones lunch, and are correspondent to the entire working day. The questionnaires were placed at the desks of all the people in the sampling areas, offices, and laboratories. The questionnaires were pre-tested to make sure the wording was understood, and the ordering of questions didnt change the results. The employees were to answer seven questions all percentages that should add up to 100% of the working week. The questionnaires that were returned and did not add up to between 90% and 110% were disregarded. 4,000 questionnaires were distributed, and 2626, or 66%, were returned and usable. Overall, the common results of the observations and questionnaires were recognizable. The observation method is more accurate, and unbiased, so the main differences in the two sets of data are explained by people underestimating the time they spend communicating face-to-face, and overestimating the time they spend reading and writing. The questionnaire and observed data representing how much time is spent speaking on the telephone, working with lab equipment and office machinery, and other were relatively the same. Another observation is that the amount of time spent communicating depends on how many people are in the office. The fewer people, the more communication went on. This could be due to the fact that many one or two person offices were supervisory level, and therefore had to communicate to employees more often. All offices engaged in face-to-face communication more than in laboratories. Although, time spent working with equipment is only 13%, even though the research study population is a research and development laboratory. This leads us to the conclusion that communication with people, not equipment, is the center of activity for most professionals, administrators, clerks, secretaries and technicians.

Apprentices, Planters and Special Magistrates 1834 -1838

Apprentices, Planters and Special Magistrates 1834 -1838 Introduction The Apprenticeship System was intended to provide a smooth transition for the ex-enslaved into freedom after Emancipation was declared. It also ensured an adequate supply of labour for Planters during the period it lasted.[1] The newly made Apprentices were separated into two groups: the Praedials who were to work 6 years in the fields and the Non-Praedials who were to work 4 years domestically.[2]Apprentices were supposed to learn new skills such as budgeting and saving. Planters on the other hand, were expected to introduce new technologies and get accustomed to paying wages. Special Magistrates were employed to make sure that the planters obeyed the laws and the ex-enslaved were protected. The system was implemented in British Guiana, Trinidad and Jamaica. However, Antigua and Bermuda did not implement it.[3] The aim of this study is to examine the views of the Apprentices, Planters and Special Magistrates as they recall the Apprenticeship System during the time period, 1834-1838. It is necessary to research this topic because it needs to be examined more in depth as it is not widely researched. One can obtain valuable insight from the different perspectives of the Apprentices, Planters and Stipendary Magistrates in this case. Apprentices The Apprenticeship System was not anything like what freedom should have felt like. Although it was supposed to be a transitional for many ex-enslaved it ended up being nothing more than a further period of bondage. At first they were happy in 1834 when Emancipation was granted, but later on they became confused and upset when they realised that their new freedom came with terms and conditions to abide by just as if it were enslavement continued. Apprentices did not understand this system which led to instances of protest. From time to time short strikes occurred and acts of sabotage just as during the enslavement period[4]. For example, in Jamaica. John Graskell of Mt.Sinai was found guilty of insubordination and attempting to get other apprentices to resist[5].These actions taken by the Apprentices showed that they were unhappy with the Apprenticeship system. Even though the Apprentices were supposed to be paid for any additional hours of work other than the 40  ½ hours they had to complete each week, Planters continued to frustrate them by tying wages to the rent of huts and they often took advantage of the Apprentices by making them work the extra hours for no pay as they knew that the Apprentices did not have the knowledge to calculate how long they worked and if they were getting paid accurately. Apprentices were in a weak position which did not enable them to bargain with Planters about the conditions of their employment.[6] Aside from this, Planters also punished the Apprentices by using one of the harshest punishments, the treadmill which was carried out in workhouses.[7] The Apprentices were quite confused when they received these horrible punishments and faced these frustrations because they were supposed to be treated as free men and employees. This clearly did not happen. Figure 1: Apprentices on the Treadmill       Digital Image.GeorgetownsvgrevisitedN.p., n.d.Web. http://www.georgetownsvgrevisited.co.uk/resources/Sugar-Plantations-In-South-America.jpg?timestamp=1442850837171> Plantocracy The whole idea of the Apprenticeship System was upsetting to planters, because their properties (the Africans) were granted their freedom. The planters were disgusted by the Apprentices and they did not view them as people who should be granted their freedom. Even though planters were compensated, this did not stop them from extracting as much labour as possible from the ex-enslaved before full freedom set in. They tried to exercise their usual power over the now freed people. This was especially done as they had the right to decide if an apprentices work was satisfactory or not. Even though the Emancipation Act forbade physical punishment on the plantation, it ordered each colony to set up workhouses[8] to carry out punishments there. The workhouses were dominantly controlled by the planters nonetheless. When planters discovered that apprentices would sell produce from their provision grounds or work on other properties for income, they tried to stop it by all means. If the Apprentices were making their own money they would forfeit this control that the Planters had and the Planters did not want this. They started giving Apprentices poor quality provision grounds closer to their plantation or in the case of an Apprentice always having their own provision ground the planters made it difficult for them by cutting down fruit trees or forbidding apprentices to have livestock.[9] Planters also refused to pay fair wages after the 40  ½ hours, or pay the wages on time. The vagueness of the Act allowed the Plantation Owners to manipulate the terms and conditions to their benefit and made the Apprentices suffer. The Special Magistrates The Colonial Office attempted to see that the Apprenticeship System was being carried out fairly so they sent Special Magistrates to the Caribbean. They were supposed to protect the rights of the former enslaved and settle disputes between employers and labourers. Many of the Magistrates were either retired British army officials or were civil servants.[10] However, the ratio of Special Magistrates to Apprentices was small, therefore this left the Magistrates with a lot on their hands. Their job was extremely exhausting as they had no money and worked under poor conditions. A Special Magistrates salary was insufficient and they still had to provide their own housing, food and travelling expenses[11]. As a result of this, many Magistrates were forced to take bribes from Planters such as accepting meals and lodgings, often the night before a Magistrate had to listen to an apprentices complaint against a planter. This was not fair to the Apprentices as the Magistrates opinions were bias and they were automatically on the side of the planter. Even if there were Magistrates who wanted to help they could not as they did not have the resources to do so. Fortunately, there were still a few Magistrates who carried out their jobs well and went out of their way to help apprentices and investigating their complaints, often risking their lives. For example, John Bowen Colthurst,Captain James Grady, William Oldery and William Ramsey.[12] According to historian, W L Burn, a good magistrate was one who: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ tolerated neither undue laziness on the part of apprentices nor undue severity on the part of the masters; kept their districts in order, tried to work with the governor and (while courting neither the favour of the planter nor that of the negrophilists).[13] Conclusion The Apprenticeship System failed as it was plagued by poor labour relations as Planters intended to keep their traditional power and racial dominance over the Apprentices. It also failed as a British Parliamentary Committee recommended that workhouses be taken away from local magistrates due to evidence reports sent by the Special Magistrates in 1837.[14] The planters had mixed reactions to the ending of the system. Some still wanted the system to run its full course while others wanted it to end mainly because they no longer wanted to have the expenses of providing for the Apprentices. As expected, the Apprentices were quite happy that the system was ended. On August 1 1838, laws were passed to prematurely end it[15]. At the end of Apprenticeship everyone was freed wether they were a praedial or non-praedial. Figure 2 : A gathering for the listening of the Governor reading the proclamation of the end of the Apprenticeship in the Spanish Town main square, Jamaica, 1838 Digital Image. Jamaican Echoes. [1] Dookhan, Isaac. Pre-Emancipation of the West Indies. Longman Group UK Ltd.1988. p.94 [2] http://scholar.library.miami.edu/emancipation/culture2.html [3] Beckles McD, Hilary, and Verene A Shepherd, Freedoms Won: Caribbean Emancipations, Ethnicities and Nationhood. Cambridge University Press.2006 p.9 [4] Beckles McD, Hilary, and Verene A Shepherd, Freedoms Won: Caribbean Emancipations, Ethnicities and Nationhood. Cambridge University Press.2006 p.11 [5] I bid. [6] Dookhan, Isaac. Pre-Emancipation of the West Indies. Longman Group UK Ltd.1988. p.93 [7] Claypole, William and John Robottom. Caribbean History: Foundations Book 1, Pearson Education Limited, 2009. Pg.175 [8] Extracts from the journal of a special magistrate in Barbados showed how the workhouse was used to control apprentices who worked less hard than the overseer demanded or who challenged a planter. [9] Claypole, William and John Robottom. Caribbean History: Foundations Book 1, Pearson Education Limited, 2009. Pg.178 [10] Claypole, William and John Robottom. Caribbean History: Foundations Book 1, Pearson Education Limited, 2009. Pg.175 [11] The initial salary of a Special Magistrate was  £300 but this was seen as inadequate and it was then moved up to  £450. [12] Beckles McD, Hilary, and Verene A Shepherd, Freedoms Won: Caribbean Emancipations, Ethnicities and Nationhood. Cambridge University Press.2006 Pg.13 [13] Beckles McD, Hilary, and Verene A Shepherd, Freedoms Won: Caribbean Emancipations, Ethnicities and Nationhood. Cambridge University Press.2006 Pg.14 [14] Claypole, William and John Robottom. Caribbean History: Foundations Book 1, Pearson Education Limited, 2009. Pg.178 [15] I bid.

Superiority of Races in Sinclair Lewis Babbitt Essay -- Lewis Babbitt

Superiority of Races in Babbit      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Hatred, intolerance, prejudice, and narrow-mindedness are all terms that can be applied when describing someone who is a bigot.   By these terms George F. Babbitt, the protagonist in Sinclair Lewis' Babbitt, and many of his acquaintances are quite the bigots toward all those that appear different than he is especially immigrants and minorities in America.   The blame should not be placed squarely on these men's shoulders for possessing such hate filled beliefs, but their opinion of the matter is generated from the accepted notion, which had been approved of and passed down through the generations, that immigrants and minorities are far less superior than the "native" white men who have "always" lived in America.   The irony of this subject in the book is that although men of Babbitt's stature openly shared and joked with one another about their superiority to all other races, not one would ever admit that he was even by a small degree a bigot. By showing this to the reader Lewis was making the point that even though there were few that openly admitted to being a bigot almost everyone had some type of bigotry inside because to him it was an essential part of human nature.   Even though there is still racism in today's society it is not as widespread as it was during the time in which Lewis wrote.   Therefore Lewis' view of human nature is not entirely accurate when applied to modern society.  Ã‚        Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Although Babbitt never publicly articulated any racist type comments, his ideas toward immigrants and minorities could easily be affiliated with that of racial supremacy.   Although there was a brief period in which Babbitt did sympathize with the immigrant... ... Paul S, et al. The Enduring Vision: a History of the American People. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000. 950   Ezekiel, Raphael S. Introduction The Racist Mind: Portraits of American Neo-Nazis and Klansmen. New York: Penguin, 1995. xxviii-xxi. Lewis, Sinclair. Babbitt. 1922. New York: Bantam, 1998. 21+ 148-149 Leyden, Thomas James. "The Making of a Skinhead." Simon Wiesenthal Center. 1999. http://www.wiesenthal.com/tj/index.html>. Rpt. in Ethnic Violence. Ed. Myra H. Immell. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. 98   Pascoe, Elaine. Racial Prejudice: Why Can't We Overcome?. 2nd ed. New York:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Franklin Watts, 1997. 21+ 33+ 79-80+ 99+ 116. Witkin, Gordon, and Jeannye Thornton. "Pride and Prejudice." U.S. News & World Report 15 Jul.1996. Rpt. in Ethnic Violence. Ed. Myra H. Immell. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. 74. Superiority of Races in Sinclair Lewis' Babbitt Essay -- Lewis Babbitt Superiority of Races in Babbit      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Hatred, intolerance, prejudice, and narrow-mindedness are all terms that can be applied when describing someone who is a bigot.   By these terms George F. Babbitt, the protagonist in Sinclair Lewis' Babbitt, and many of his acquaintances are quite the bigots toward all those that appear different than he is especially immigrants and minorities in America.   The blame should not be placed squarely on these men's shoulders for possessing such hate filled beliefs, but their opinion of the matter is generated from the accepted notion, which had been approved of and passed down through the generations, that immigrants and minorities are far less superior than the "native" white men who have "always" lived in America.   The irony of this subject in the book is that although men of Babbitt's stature openly shared and joked with one another about their superiority to all other races, not one would ever admit that he was even by a small degree a bigot. By showing this to the reader Lewis was making the point that even though there were few that openly admitted to being a bigot almost everyone had some type of bigotry inside because to him it was an essential part of human nature.   Even though there is still racism in today's society it is not as widespread as it was during the time in which Lewis wrote.   Therefore Lewis' view of human nature is not entirely accurate when applied to modern society.  Ã‚        Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Although Babbitt never publicly articulated any racist type comments, his ideas toward immigrants and minorities could easily be affiliated with that of racial supremacy.   Although there was a brief period in which Babbitt did sympathize with the immigrant... ... Paul S, et al. The Enduring Vision: a History of the American People. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000. 950   Ezekiel, Raphael S. Introduction The Racist Mind: Portraits of American Neo-Nazis and Klansmen. New York: Penguin, 1995. xxviii-xxi. Lewis, Sinclair. Babbitt. 1922. New York: Bantam, 1998. 21+ 148-149 Leyden, Thomas James. "The Making of a Skinhead." Simon Wiesenthal Center. 1999. http://www.wiesenthal.com/tj/index.html>. Rpt. in Ethnic Violence. Ed. Myra H. Immell. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. 98   Pascoe, Elaine. Racial Prejudice: Why Can't We Overcome?. 2nd ed. New York:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Franklin Watts, 1997. 21+ 33+ 79-80+ 99+ 116. Witkin, Gordon, and Jeannye Thornton. "Pride and Prejudice." U.S. News & World Report 15 Jul.1996. Rpt. in Ethnic Violence. Ed. Myra H. Immell. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. 74.

Ethics and Negotiation Essay

?Negotiation is a pervasive features of business life. Success in business typically requires successful negotiations. In a competitive and morally imperfect world, business people are often faced with serious ethical challenges. Herboting suspicious abut the ethics of others, many feel justified in engaging in less-than-ideal conduct to protect their own interests. The most sophisticated moral arguments are unlikely to counteract this behaviour. We believe that this morally defensive behaviour responsible, in large part, for much undesirable deception in negotiation. Drawing on recent work in the literature of negotiations, we present some practical guidance on how negotiators might build trust, establish common interests, and secure credibility for their statements thereby promoting honesty. â€Å"We must make the world honest before we can honestly say to our children that honesty is the best policy† George Bernard SHAW What do we mean by ethics? Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right and wrong in a particular situation, or a process for setting those standards. And ethics grow out of a particular philosophies which; define the nature of the world in which we live and prescribe rules for living together. Why do people choose unethical behaviour? The first answer that normally occurs to us is that people are corrupt, degenerate, or immoral. In fact these answers are to simplistics; moreover, they do not help us understand and control our own behaviour, or successfully influence and predict the behaviour of others in a bargaining environment. Here were three primary factors motivational factors which lead negotiators to consider using unethical tactics: the pursuit of profit, the desire to beat an opponent in a competitive environment, and the need to insure or restore some standard of justice that has been violated. Three major categories of ethical conduct were used to describe the broad range of questionable negotiating strategies and tactics: means/ends, truth-telling, and relativism. The more e is committed to abide by certain rules and procedures, the more one believes that following the rules will eventually lead to the desired ends. The second group of tactics, relativistic vs. absolute, forces us to deal with questions of whether there are truly absolute rules and principles of right and wrong, or whether questions of ethics must be answered by each individual in his own personalized, subjective view of the world. Many authors have suggested that bluffing, misrepresentation or factual distortion is sometimes necessary in order to effectively negotiate; such behaviour, however, may well be seen by others as unethical and inappropriate. We believe that the negotiation process raises a host of ethical issues, more so than most other interpersonal transactions. Much of what has been written on negotiating behaviour has been strongly normative abut ethics, and prescribed â€Å"dos and don’ts†. We do not believe that this approach facilitates the understanding of how negotiators actually decide to act unethically. We believe this process can best be understood by a simple decision-making model. We proposed that a negotiator who chooses to use an unethical tactic usually decides to do so in order to increase his negotiating power. Power is gained by manipulating the perceived base of accurate information (lying), getting better information about n opponent’s plan, or undermining an opponent’s ability to achieve his objectives. Using these tactics leads to two kinds of consequences; first, actual attainment or non-attainment of these goals he was seeking; and second, evaluation and criticism of the tactics by the negotiator himself, by his opponent and by observers. Negotiators usually feel compelled to justify their actions –i.e., they know they have done something â€Å"wrong† and need to establish a â€Å"good reason† We suggested that the decision to use ethical or unethical tactics may be influenced in varying degrees by differences in individual backgrounds, personality, rewards or punishments associated with ethical or unethical actions, and the social and cultural norms that dictate what is appropriate or inappropriate in a given environment. We have made a number of assumptions about ways to judge and evaluate human conduct in the realm of ethics. We have intentionally avoided taking a strong normative stance, and have not tried to emphasize our own biases about what kinds of conduct are ethical or unethical. Instead, we have proposed several conclusions that can be drawn from research, experience and common sense: 1 Individuals will often disagree as to what kinds of negotiating tactics are â€Å"ethical† or â€Å"unethical†, and in which situations it is appropriate or inappropriate to use them. 2 The decision to use an unethical tactic can be probably best be understood as a quasirational decision making process in which a variety of personality and situational variables are likely to affect that decision. 3 In deciding to use an unethical tactic, a negotiator is likely to be most heavily influenced by what he believes the consequences will be for his choice: will it help him accomplish his objectives, and what kind of feed back is he likely to receive from others? 4 Negotiators who have used unethical tactics in the past, or might be considering their use in the future, should strongly consider three possible consequences of using unethical tactics: a Will they really help achieve objectives? b How will they affect the quality of the relationship with this opponent in the future? c How will they affect their reputation? Negotiators frequently overlook the fact that while unethical or expedient tactics may get them what they want in the short run, these same tactics typically lead to long-term problems and to diminished effectiveness. Rules of the game An assumption: every negotiation situation involves questions of ethics. What are the understood â€Å"rules of the game?† What is fair? What is just? What is legal? What is appropriate and acceptable? What is expected? Is ethical behaviour †¦. What is practical? What is expedient? What is efficient? What serves one’s interests or a client’s interests? What is necessary to win? Like the poker player, a negotiator hopes that his opponent will overestimate the value of his hand. Like the poker player, in a variety of ways he must facilitate his opponent’s inaccurate assessment. The critical difference between those who are successful negotiators and those who are not lies in this capacity both to mislead and not to be misled. Four major approaches to ethical reasoning 1 End-result ethics (results lens) The rightness of an action is determined by evaluating its consequences. Here the question is: â€Å"what will be the result?† 2 Duty ethics ( reputation lens) The rightness of an action is determined by one’s obligation to adhere to consistent principles, laws and social standards that define what is right  and wrong. Here the question is: â€Å"what will others think?† 3 Social contract ethics ( relationship lens) The rightness of an action is based o the customs and norms of a particular society or community. The question here is: â€Å"how will this impact others?† 4 Personalistic ethics (rights lens) The rightness of the action is based on one’s own conscience and moral standards the question here is: â€Å"what should I do?† So when in an ethical quandary we answer the following questions; What will be the result? What will others think? How will this impact others? What should I do? THE IMPORTANCE OF NEGOTIATION ETHICHS Commonly held assumptions reflect negatively on the ethics of the negotiation tactics of car salespeople, lawyers, horse traders, and other people who have a reputation of trying to influence folks into reaching agreements by misrepresenting facts. This kind of stereotyping has attached itself to people from different countries, ethic groups, or even as reflected in the expression from the 60s ‘Don’t trust anyone over 30’. Negotiation is about many things; one of its central elements is convincing others to accept the accuracy or reality of information that will influence their decision. Most negotiators know that it is, indeed, possible to influence people by lying to them. But good negotiators also realize that when other parties find out they have been on the receiving end of lies, the lying negotiator’s credibility goes down to tubes. There is an old expression ‘If you cheat me once, shame on you. ‘If you cheat me twice, shame on me.’ People who have been taken in by dishonestly resent  it; if they are able, they try to get out of deals where there’s been misrepresentation. In general, a general negotiator must make positive misstatement to be held liable fraud. First, when the negotiator makes a partial disclosure that is; or becomes, misleading. Second, where the negotiator acts as a fiduciary. Third, when the negotiator has important information about the transaction not accessible to the other side. Fourth, where required by statue. On the other side we can say that negotiation is not a competitive sport. In competitive sports, the object is to end up winning the game, the race, or the event. Negotiators who focus on treating other parties as opponents run the risk of ending up with reluctant counterparties to whatever agreements may be reached. Unless all the parties are fully committed to their agreement, it may well fall apart; in those circumstances the negotiation has failed. The ethics of negotiation should be based on several understandings; Reluctant partners make undependable partners so treating negotiation partners with respect and honesty simply makes common sense. Negotiators need to recognize up front that the only reason to use negotiation to resolve a conflict, agree on a project, or conclude a sale because other parties may be able to add value an individual or a single company cannot do acting alone. Transparency in the negotiation process is more likely to bring about buy-in than hidden agendas or tricky maneuvers. Other parties have feelings. Last understanding is the Golden Rule of treating others as you would wish to be treated has the bottom line value of increasing other parties’ enthusiasm about negotiating with you as well as their enthusiasm about the ultimate  agreement. Good negotiation ethics: honesty, transparency, respect for others are all genuinely pragmatic approaches to use. A negotiator’s reputation is not unlike that of a restaurant; if you have bad meal, you are not likely to return. And a negotiator with whom others don’t want to deal is effectively out of business. Negotiator also should understand four major approaches to ethical reasoning: end-result ethics, or the principals of act utilitarianism; rule ethics, or the principle of rule utilitarianism; social contract ethics, or the principles of community-based socially acceptable behaviour; and personalistic ethics, or the principles of determining what is right buy turning to one’s conscience. Each of these approaches may be used by negotiators to evaluate appropriate strategies and tactics. Consequently we can say that negotiation ethics is more important for negotiator that’s why negotiator should recognize ethics carefully. Also unethical behaviours are most important to the negotiator. Because when he or she faced with unethical behaviour he or she should find the reasons for unethical behaviour.

Personality Essay Essay

Every individual person has a personality. This personality is also unique in every person, and is influenced by such things as the environment and his or her genetics , So the personality could sets the career future , it help to understand yourself . it’s equally important to understand what is really important to you , and how to success at the career . In this essay I will talk about ISFJ personality and how did it match my personality . In the results of the personality test ISFJ personality have a many good and bad traits. People who have ISFJ personality have an excellent memory , they work hard to get their jobs done , take their responsibilities seriously , kind and considerate , they have a large store of information about people , very excellent sense of space and function and can be depended on to follow things through to completion . However it have tow basic traits help to define career direction : 1- they are extremely interested in-tune with how other people are feeling , and 2- they enjoy creating structure and order , and extremely good at it . But the bad things ISFJ personality that they are put others needs and feelings above their own , and they uncomfortable with conflict and confrontation . I did the personalty test because its very important to understand what is important to me , so I can success at the career I choose . the results did not surprise me pretty much because I think are the most of traits in me . For example it is true that I have an excellent memory , working hard to get the job done , like to put structure in order , have a peaceful living , likely to put people’s needs on my own and taking responsibilities seriously . Almost all the traits match my personality traits. In the end , the results shows many interesting careers for example : interior decorator , designer , administration , office mangers , and child care. However , I feel like I’m interesting in interior decorating and cloth design because I can be more creative and shows my creativity in these two careers . But also I’m interested in office mangers because I can work hard and be creative in it and be good at it.