Tyranny of Teams Essay Example for Free

Tyranny of Teams Essay Some alternative perspectives on team behaviour elucidate the ways in which the prevailing paradigm ultimately hinders groups and tyrannizes the individual team member mdash; by camouflaging coercion and conflict with the appearance of consultation and cohesion. Examination of the limits and effects of the ideology provide the basis for an alternative understanding of the strengths, constraints and complexities of group work. Introduction Teams in various forms have become ubiquitous ways of working. As task forces, committees, work groups and quality circles, they are used to provide leadership, accomplish research, maximize creativity and operationalize structural flexibility (Peters and Waterman 1982; Payne The 1988) . prescriptions of much contemporary management thinking are based on a dominant ideology of teamwork. While teams have been narrowly construed as a tool of the Organization Development Model, the ideology is much more pervasive. Teams are embraced as tools of diverse models of organizational reform from organization development (Dunphy 1976) to work restructuring (Poza and Markus 1980), from quality management to industrial democracy and from corporate culture and Japanese management approaches to complex contingency prescriptions. 611 Beliefs about the benefits of teams occupy a central and unquestioned place in organizational reform. It is all the more surprising that, despite some differences in context, the team ideology has been espoused with such consistency. The hegemony of this ideology has been supported by researchers who offer the ’team’ as a tantalizingly simple solution to some of the intracDownloaded from http://oss. sagepub. com at Massey University Library on June 28, 2010 612 problems of organizational life. Teams appear to satisfy everything individual needs (for sociability, self-actualization, participative management), organizational needs (for productivity, organizational development, effectiveness) and even society’s needs for alleviating the malaise of alienation and other by-products of modern industrial society (Johnson and Johnson 1987). However, do work groups deserve the status they have acquired as multipurpose panaceas for organizational problems? As has been powerfully argued in organizational analysis (Burrell and Morgan 1979; Astley and Van de Ven 1983; Reed 1985; Alvesson 1987), the dominance of a particular paradigm has substantial costs in the institutionalization of table at once: mechanisms of control. The purpose of this article is to scrutinize the ideological basis of the prevailing team paradigm. Four sets of assumptions which underpin the ideology are identified: 1. Narrowly conceived definitions of work groups and group work are based on the assumption that mature teams are task-oriented, and have successfully minimized corruption by other group impulses. 2. It is an individual motivation formula and a ’unitary view’ of organizations which assumes confluence, not conflict, between individual, group and organizational goals (Burrell and Morgan 1979: 204). 3. Simplistic views of the superiority of participative leaders are held. 4. The views are also held that power, conflict and emotion are subversive forces which divert groups from work. Research from some alternative critical, psychoanalytic and other perspectives is used to suggest some areas in which the paradigm requires overhaul. A premise of this paper is that teams can contribute to getting work of all kinds done, but not when their application is informed by a narrow framework that nurtures inappropriate expectations. Further, and more critically, the team ideology embraced by these assumptions tyrannizes because, under the banner of benefits to all, teams are frequently used to camouflage coercion under the pretence of maintaining cohesion; conceal conflict under the guise of consensus; convert conformity into a semblance of creativity; give unilateral decisions a co-determinist seal of approval; delay action in the supposed interests of consultation; legitimize lack of leadership; and disguise expedient arguments and personal agendas. Definitions of Teams and Group Work theorists have defined a ’team’ as a distinctive class of which is more task-oriented than other groups, and which has a set group, of obvious rules and rewards for its members (Adair 1986). According to this view, high-performing teams substitute collective goals and an inter- Management Downloaded from http://oss. sagepub. com at Massey University Library on June 28, 2010 613 est in the task at hand for individual agendas and inter-personal conflicts. Group theorists have noted the parallels between therapeutic groups and other types of work groups (Foulkes 1964: 110). However, the emphasis of team ideology on the task-orientation of teams has tended to idealize and resist recognizing that groups with a task still experience anti-task behaviour, and indeed have much in common with other types of groups. Seeking to understand both individual and group work, researchers have, on the whole, been dogged by the search for discrete or measurable outputs of work. Work has many forms. Some definitions of individual ’performance’ and ’effectiveness’ in administrative and managerial (Likert 1967; Sorenson 1971) with creativity and innovation in research or scientific contexts (Gordon 1961; Sch6n 1963), yet such experimental measures often seem to bear little resemblance to individual experiences of work (Terkel 1974) . Efforts to define group work by researchers in the team ideology tradition have produced a range of measures referring either to the output or to the quality of group process.

Capital Punishment Essay -- Argumentative Persuasive Death Crime Essay

Capital Punishment   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Taking this course has made me ponder on many issues which I never deemed worthy of my thoughts. I always considered the death penalty one of those things which I never had to concern myself with. First of all I'm not planning to commit any vial crimes, and I don't think anyone I care about has those plans either. Secondly, I've never been conscious or concerned with the likes of criminals. When we began speaking on the subject, I thought we were only going to talk about the institution of racism in capital punishment, and was quite unaware of the feeling this subject would arouse in me. Needless to say, I have formed some opinions on the issue which confused even me.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I always considered myself pro-capital punishment. I was of the mind that if someone killed me, I would like my death avenged, but pondering on the issue of cultural differences has made me doubt my prior convictions. First of all, I am against the use of the lethal injection. I understand that it is cleaner, but if the law wants to inflict death as a punishment, it must understand that death is not a pretty thing. Criminals are painlessly put to sleep, and die in the same manner that Dr. Kavorkian's patients choose. Personally, if I was faced with the option of living the remainder of my life in isolation, perpetually haunted by pain and images of terror, I would absolutely chose to die by lethal injection. There is no true punishment in this method, except the fear of going to hell, which I strongly doubt is of much concern to most convicts on death row.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Assuming that the judicial processes which convict these individuals are legitimate, the only common bond within this group is that they are all mortal, and hold no respect for human life. These delinquents are on death row, because they have committed a crime of such ghastly proportions, that society has deemed them unfit to live. They deliberately and nonchalantly depraved another human of their life. They emphatically partook in reprehensible malice of inhuman dimensions, never bothered by their conscience. They are sick and vile individuals who do not acknowledge social conventions such as religion and the law. They have broken the law, and in leaving it they removed themselves from the protection of the law. The 8th Amendment should no longer apply to these sick de... ...ideas of hate. Then you burn their faces till they are so ugly to look at that they are ashamed to be alive. Then you castrate them to make sure they can no longer partake in pleasure. In this disheveled state you throw them out to the streets so they can see and hear the pain, agony and injustice that they so freely bestowed on their victims. They will truly suffer for their crimes. They will be the new example for future criminals. No longer will the villain be worshipped by the mass media, or by the youngsters on the streets. The gangster will then cease to exist, and only the mentally retarded will perpetuate their heinous crimes.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Isn't it sad that our situation has become so grave that we must actually look to these alternatives to solve the problem. I think everyone knows that the only way to help ourselves to a better life is through education, but politicians continue to withdraw funding for schools. We are going about the solution in the wrong way. If we teach people to value themselves and accept others, and therefore dissolve economic and class differences, we will truly begin to put an end to crime. Till then we will have to accept our reality.

African and Native American Slavery Essay

The 1500’s, a time of discovery, was when the Europeans came to dominate most of the New World. The Europeans traveled to Africa and captured Africans to help develop their land and satisfy their need for power. I feel that the treatment of the Indians and Africans by the Europeans was completely unjustifiable. While the Indians and Africans were less technologically advanced and the Europeans were uneducated, in this particular field, nothing can compensate for the actions of the Europeans. As Europeans began to settle new lands they began their exploration of the foreign worlds. What they found was the opposite of what they expected. They found what they thought was a new breed of humans. In reality they were just Native Americans. These Indians were less technologically advanced than the Europeans. They also worshipped different and multiple gods and ate different foods. Europeans saw this as barbaric, so they treated them as barbarians. In the beginning Native Americans hadn’t the faintest idea of what the Europeans had in mind when they said trade. They figured that when the White Man came and showed all that hospitality they meant it. Of course, they didn’t, the Europeans captured the Indians to be used as slaves. They were also slaughtered and raped because of resistance to leave their land. If any Indians refused to leave their land they would be killed. The women were raped for sick and disgusting reasons. Europeans didn’t feel that the women, or men for that matter, were worth anything as humans so they were beat and raped without any thought about what they might be doing. As we watched the movie Roots, I noticed a part in the movie where they were on a ship and a man brings in a black woman, who was a slave. The man offered her to the ship’s captain and referred to her as a belly warmer. That got me to thinking what could be going on in that man’s head as he said that. When I heard that I was shocked that a man could treat someone like that. People have feelings and cannot be treated as objects. Maybe the Europeans didn’ t realize that these people were, in fact people, and that drove them to this awful conclusion that they could treat people this way. As Europeans settled their land and began to build houses, farms and plantations, they realized that they needed servants to assist them in their farming. So people would travel to Africa capture blacks and then sell them to merchants and plantation owners. They would then beat them and put them to long, grueling work. They would treat them as they did the Indians, and for much the same reason. They figured that since the blacks were black and appeared to be less advanced then they must be less significant. People of the next generation whose parents owned slaves and grew up thinking slaves were okay is understandable. I just don’t feel that anything could justify treating the slaves they way they did. they had absolutely no respect for them. They would savagely beat them to get them to work harder than humanly possible and they would rape the women. I don’t think that I will ever know how any one could do such a thing. I conclusion I strongly feel that the way Europeans treated people that were less technologically advanced is completely and utterly wrong. It is difficult to contemplate what was going on in their heads as they were capturing them, killing them and even raping them. I can not believe how they could think that the color of someone’s ones skin or religious beliefs could make them less human. I am glad I live in a country based on the belief that all men are created equal.

Benazir Bhutto Former Prime Minister of Pakistan

Benazir Bhutto was born into one of South Asias great political dynasties, Pakistans equivalent of the Nehru/Gandhi dynasty in India. Her father was president of Pakistan from 1971 to 1973, and Prime Minister from 1973 to 1977; his father, in turn, was prime minister of a princely state before independence and the Partition of India. Politics in Pakistan, however, is a dangerous game. In the end, Benazir, her father, and both of her brothers would die violently. Early Life Benazir Bhutto was born on June 21, 1953, in Karachi, Pakistan, the first child of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Begum Nusrat Ispahani. Nusrat was from Iran, and practiced Shia Islam, while her husband practiced Sunni Islam. They raised Benazir and their other children as Sunnis  but in an open-minded and non-doctrinaire fashion. The couple later would have two sons and another daughter: Murtaza (born in 1954), daughter Sanam (born in 1957), and Shahnawaz (born in 1958). As the eldest child, Benazir was expected to do very well in her studies, regardless of her gender. Benazir went to school in Karachi through high school, then attended Radcliffe College (now part of Harvard University) in the United States, where she studied comparative government. Bhutto later said that her experience in Boston reconfirmed her belief in the power of democracy. After graduating from Radcliffe in 1973, Benazir Bhutto spent several additional years studying at Oxford University in Great Britain. She took a wide variety of courses in international law and diplomacy, economics, philosophy, and politics. Entry into Politics Four years into Benazirs studies in England, the Pakistani military overthrew her fathers government in a coup. The coup leader, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, imposed martial law on Pakistan and had Zulfikar Ali Bhutto arrested on trumped-up conspiracy charges. Benazir returned home, where she and her brother Murtaza worked for 18 months to rally public opinion in support of their jailed father. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, meanwhile, convicted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of conspiracy to commit murder  and sentenced him to death by hanging. Due to their activism on behalf of their father, Benazir and Murtaza were placed under house arrest off and on. As Zulfikars designated execution date of April 4, 1979, drew closer, Benazir, her mother, and her younger siblings were all arrested and imprisoned in a police camp. Imprisonment Despite an international outcry, General Zias government hanged Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on April 4, 1979. Benazir, her brother, and her mother were in prison at the time  and were not allowed to prepare the former prime ministers body for burial in accordance with Islamic law. When Bhuttos Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) won local elections that spring, Zia canceled national elections and sent the surviving members of the Bhutto family to prison in Larkana, about 460 kilometers (285 miles) north of Karachi. Over the next five years, Benazir Bhutto would be held either in prison or under house arrest. Her worst experience was in a desert prison at Sukkur, where she was held in solitary confinement for six months of 1981, including the worst of the summer heat. Tormented by insects, and with her hair falling out and skin peeling off from the baking temperatures, Bhutto had to be hospitalized for several months after this experience. Once Benazir was sufficiently recovered from her term at Sukkur Jail, Zias government sent her back to the Karachi Central Jail, then to Larkana once more, and back to Karachi under house arrest. Meanwhile, her mother, who had also been held at Sukkur, was diagnosed with lung cancer. Benazir herself had developed an inner ear problem that required surgery. International pressure mounted for Zia to allow them to leave Pakistan to seek medical care. Finally, after six years of moving the Bhutto family from one form of imprisonment to the next, General Zia allowed them to go into exile in order to get treatment. Exile Benazir Bhutto and her mother went to London in January of 1984 to begin their self-imposed medical exile. As soon as Benazirs ear problem was remedied, she began to publicly advocate against the Zia regime. Tragedy touched the family once more on July 18, 1985. After a family picnic, Benazirs youngest brother, the 27-year-old Shah Nawaz Bhutto, died of poisoning in his home in France. His family believed that his Afghan princess wife, Rehana, had murdered Shah Nawaz at the behest of the Zia regime; although French police held her in custody for some time, no charges were ever brought against her. Despite her grief, Benazir Bhutto continued her political involvement. She became the leader in exile of her fathers Pakistan Peoples Party. Marriage Family Life Between the assassinations of her close relatives and Benazirs own frantically busy political schedule, she had no time for dating or meeting men. In fact, by the time she entered her 30s, Benazir Bhutto had begun to assume that she would never marry; politics would be her lifes work and only love. Her family had other ideas. An auntie advocated for a fellow Sindhi and scion of a landed family, a young man named Asif Ali Zardari. Benazir refused to even meet him at first, but after a concerted effort by her family and his, the marriage was arranged (despite Benazirs feminist qualms about arranged marriages). The marriage was a happy one, and the couple had three children - a son, Bilawal (born 1988), and two daughters, Bakhtawar (born 1990) and Aseefa (born 1993). They had hoped for a larger family, but Asif Zardari was imprisoned for seven years, so they were unable to have more children. Return and Election as Prime Minister On August 17, 1988, the Bhuttos received a favor from the heavens, as it were. A C-130 carrying General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq and several of his top military commanders, along with US Ambassador to Pakistan Arnold Lewis Raphel, crashed near Bahawalpur, in the Punjab region of Pakistan. No definitive cause was ever established, although theories included sabotage, Indian missile strike, or a suicidal pilot. Simple mechanical failure seems the most likely cause, however. Zias unexpected death cleared the way for Benazir and her mother to lead the PPP to victory in the November 16, 1988, parliamentary elections. Benazir became Pakistans eleventh prime minister on December 2, 1988. Not only was she Pakistans first female Prime Minister, but also the first woman to lead a Muslim nation in modern times. She focused on social and political reforms, which rankled more traditional or Islamist politicians. Prime Minister Bhutto faced a number of international policy problems during her first tenure in office, including the Soviet and American withdrawal from Afghanistan and the resulting chaos. Bhutto reached out to India, establishing a good working relationship with Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, but that initiative failed when he was voted out of office, and then assassinated by Tamil Tigers in 1991. Pakistans relationship with the United States, already strained by the situation in Afghanistan, broke altogether in 1990 over the issue of nuclear weapons. Benazir Bhutto firmly believed that Pakistan needed a credible nuclear deterrent since India had already tested a nuclear bomb in 1974. Corruption Charges On the domestic front, Prime Minister Bhutto sought to improve human rights and the position of women in Pakistani society. She restored freedom of the press  and allowed labor unions and student groups to meet openly once again. Prime Minister Bhutto also working assiduously to weaken the ultra-conservative president of Pakistan, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, and his allies in the military leadership. However, Khan had veto power over parliamentary actions, which severely restricted Benazirs effectiveness on matters of political reform. In November of 1990, Khan dismissed Benazir Bhutto from the Prime Ministership and called new elections. She was charged with corruption and nepotism under the Eighth Amendment to the Pakistani Constitution; Bhutto always maintained that the charges were purely political. The conservative parliamentarian Nawaz Sharif became the new prime minister, while Benazir Bhutto was relegated to being the opposition leader for five years. When Sharif also tried to repeal the Eighth Amendment, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan used it to recall his government in 1993, just as he had done to Bhuttos government three years earlier. As a result, Bhutto and Sharif joined forces to oust President Khan in 1993. Second Term as Prime Minister In October of 1993, Benazir Bhuttos PPP got a plurality of the parliamentary seats  and formed a coalition government. Once again, Bhutto became prime minister. Her hand-picked candidate for the presidency, Farooq Leghari, took office in the place of Khan. In 1995, an alleged conspiracy to oust Bhutto in a military coup was exposed, and the leaders tried and jailed for sentences of two to fourteen years. Some observers believe that the putative coup was simply an excuse for Benazir to rid the military of some of her opponents. On the other hand, she had first-hand knowledge of the danger a military coup could pose, considering her fathers fate. Tragedy struck the Bhuttos once more on September 20, 1996, when Karachi police shot dead Benazirs surviving brother, Mir Ghulam Murtaza Bhutto. Murtaza had not gotten along well with Benazirs husband, which sparked conspiracy theories about his assassination. Even Benazir Bhuttos own mother accused the prime minister and her husband of causing Murtazas death. In 1997, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was dismissed from office once more, this time by President Leghari, whom she had supported. Again, she was charged with corruption; her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, was also implicated. Leghari reportedly believed that the couple was implicated in Murtaza Bhuttos assassination. Exile Once More Benazir Bhutto stood for parliamentary elections in February of 1997  but was defeated. Meanwhile, her husband had been arrested trying to get to Dubai  and went on trial for corruption. While in prison, Zardari won a parliamentary seat. In April of 1999, both Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari were convicted of corruption  and were fined $8.6 million US each. They were both sentenced to five years in prison. However, Bhutto was already in Dubai, which refused to extradite her back to Pakistan, so only Zardari served his sentence. In 2004, after his release, he joined his wife in exile in Dubai. Return to Pakistan On October 5, 2007, General and President Pervez Musharraf granted Benazir Bhutto amnesty from all of her corruption convictions. Two weeks later, Bhutto returned to Pakistan to campaign for the 2008 elections. On the day she landed at Karachi, a suicide bomber attacked her convoy surrounded by well-wishers, killing 136 and injuring 450; Bhutto escaped unharmed. In response, Musharraf declared a state of emergency on November 3. Bhutto criticized the declaration  and called Musharraf a dictator. Five days later, Benazir Bhutto was placed under house arrest to prevent her from rallying her supporters against the state of emergency. Bhutto was freed from house arrest the following day, but the state of emergency remained in effect until December 16, 2007. In the meantime, however, Musharraf gave up his post as a general in the army, affirming his intention to rule as a civilian. The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto On December 27, 2007, Bhutto appeared at an election rally in the park known as Liaquat National Bagh in Rawalpindi. As she was leaving the rally, she stood up to wave to supporters through the sunroof of her SUV. A gunman shot her three times, and then explosives went off all around the vehicle. Twenty people died on the scene; Benazir Bhutto passed away about an hour later in the hospital. Her cause of death was not the gunshot wounds but rather blunt force head trauma. The blast of the explosions had slammed her head into the edge of the sunroof with terrible force. Benazir Bhutto died at the age of 54, leaving behind a complicated legacy. The charges of corruption leveled against her husband and herself do not seem to have been entirely invented for political reasons, despite Bhuttos assertions to the contrary in her autobiography. We may never know whether she had any fore-knowledge about her brothers assassination. In the end, though, nobody can question Benazir Bhuttos bravery. She and her family endured tremendous hardships, and whatever her faults as a leader, she genuinely did strive to improve life for the ordinary people of Pakistan. Sources Bahadur, Kalim. Democracy in Pakistan: Crises and Conflicts, New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications, 1998.Obituary: Benazir Bhutto, BBC News, Dec. 27, 2007.Bhutto, Benazir. Daughter of Destiny: An Autobiography, 2nd ed., New York: Harper Collins, 2008.Bhutto, Benazir. Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West, New York: Harper Collins, 2008.Englar, Mary. Benazir Bhutto: Pakistani Prime Minister and Activist, Minneapolis, MN: Compass Point Books, 2006.