The State of Nature

 

The state of nature is one of the most debated opinions concerning the nature of human beings by philosophers. This is an extremely important concept because it seeks an understanding of the manner through which humans before the formation of societies behaved. The analysis of the state of nature considered the reasons behind why individuals ended up becoming part of societies, which essentially brought about a situation where there was the creation of the nation-state. A consequence of such a situation was that individuals shifted from a state of nature to a state of society, and the problems that the latter entails. Among these problems are the restrictions that the society puts on the natural rights of individuals, to such an extent that they essentially become subject to a political system. In this paper, there will be an analysis of the state of nature, with reference to the opinions of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau being compared and contrasted.

Among the most important philosophers to undertake to explain this concept are Locke and Rousseau, both of who consider individuals before the formation of societies had better lives than is the case with those who live in societies. Locke and Rousseau both consider the state of nature as having been more conducive for individuals, because they were able to exercise their freedoms better. Locke argues that individuals were able to live the way that they wanted without harming one another because they in the state of nature, they made use of reason. The governance of reason meant that they are able to ensure they attained all their needs without resorting to exploiting one another, as is the case in society (Locke 3). This argument is further advanced by Rousseau, who considers the state of nature as having been the creation of a situation where individuals were not able to harm one another because they did not know each other well enough (Rousseau 50). The arguments made by both Rousseau and Locke show that they take a common stance when it comes to the state of nature, where they believe that individuals had more freedoms, and could act in such a way as to ensure that their interests were catered for.

Locke and Rousseau, despite the similarities of their arguments, also have a number of differences. Locke promotes the idea that in the state of nature, individuals were governed by reason (Locke 3). He essentially suggests that in the state of nature, humans have the capacity to think and determine what it best for them because of the presence of natural laws. This argument is one that seeks to show that the state of nature and the governance of natural laws are essential in the advancement of the rights of individuals. It also considers that this state to be the most conducive because it allows for the supremacy of natural laws over those of society. This is an argument that does not agree with that proposed by Rousseau, who proposes that in the state of nature, individuals are neither good nor bad. Instead, they live in an environment where they are not able to distinguish what it right from wrong. Moreover, Rousseau is of the opinion that individuals in a state of nature are essentially blank slates, who end up being influenced by societies, which are essentially determinants of whether individuals will be good or evil (Rousseau 46). Therefore, Rousseau seems not to believe that the state of nature involves the governance of reason, and this is especially considering that individuals do not know good from evil.

The origins of the political community are explained by both Locke and Rousseau and this is done in relation to the state of nature. Locke is of the opinion that human beings are born free and that they become involved in the political community out of the desire not to be alone. He suggests that humans are created by God in a manner that encourages them to seek companionship, meaning that they are inevitably drawn into a society that essentially develops into a political community (Locke 28). However, despite being a part of the political communities, natural law should take precedence, meaning that it is essential for the natural rights of individuals should be respected at all times. Rousseau, on the other hand, states that the formation of the political community or civil state is responsible for the erosion of the state of nature (Rousseau 167). He considers the latter to be real freedom that is the essential right of all individuals, but with the formation of political society, this freedom is disrupted because of the dominance of one group of individuals over another. The result is that most individuals end up not having the freedoms provided by the state of nature to undertake the actions that they need to in order to bring about the advancement of their own personal needs.

Despite their differences, both Locke and Rousseau provide very pertinent arguments concerning the state of nature. However, the account provided by Rousseau is one that is more convincing because it provides a perspective concerning the state of nature and how this state is affected by the formation of society. One of the most important arguments that Rousseau makes, and is more convincing than that of Locke, is that in the state of nature, individuals are essentially blank slates, meaning that they are unaffected by any form of corruption (Rousseau 50). Instead, they live in an environment where they are governed by their own needs, neither being good or bad. This is an important argument because it shows Rousseau’s belief that society is what brings about the disruption of the state of nature, to such an extent that individuals are pushed towards behaving in a manner that is against their nature (Widerquist and McCall). Furthermore, Rousseau’s argument shows that it is society that has an influence on the development of individuals into either good or evil, because they become affected by the restrictive practices that are a part of the social environment. A result of such a situation is that one group of people achieves dominance over another because they have the ability to enforce their will (Rousseau 259); essentially going against the state of nature where all people are not only equal, but are also free to do as they please.

The natural state of mankind can be considered an essential concept because it seeks to ensure that there is the promotion of the rights of individuals in society. This is especially considering that it involves individuals having natural rights that are inalienable, even within the social structure. The recognition of natural rights is fundamental in the establishment of means through which to ensure that individuals are not only able to live according to their own desires, but do so based on the governance of reason. Reflecting on the natural state of mankind is essential in the establishment of a conversation concerning the effects of society on the rights of individuals. It also helps to bring about a conversation about the need to ensure that there is a respect of the natural rights of individuals in such a way that enables these rights to be recognized even within a social environment, where the restrictions against them are numerous. The attainment of a just society, where individuals have a right to ensure that there is the advancement of their interests by the political class through the application of reason, is essential in the advancement of the state of nature. Therefore, rather than the state of nature being one governed by chaos, a reflection on it is an important means of bringing about a respect for the natural rights of individuals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The basic political writings. Hackett Publishing, 2010.

Widerquist, Karl, and Grant McCall. "Myths about the State of Nature and the Reality of Stateless Societies." Analyse & Kritik 37.1-2 (2015): 233-258.

A Reflection on Harry Potter Fan Fiction

One of the most significant aspects of the story is that it seeks to remain as close as possible to the original Harry Potter by J. K. Rowling. This is essential because it allows for the advancement of greater clarity while at the same time helping the author ensure that there is the observance of ethics. In addition, logic is another aspect of the story because it develops pinions concerning the circumstances that are undergone by the various characters within it and allowing for the development of logical conclusions concerning what happens to them. A consequence is that the author advances the stories of the various characters in such a way that these characters are not only appealing to the audience, but also helps the latter develop a connection with them. The author further ensures that there is an appeal to the emotions of the audience, in such a way that some of the characters that were portrayed as evil in the original Rowling story, such as the Dursleys, are portrayed as being good in this fan fiction post; a direct deviation that is more appealing and realistic. These changes to some of the characters ensure that the audience become more attached to the in such a way that puts them in a better light.

The setting of the story is essential because it has ensured that the characters are within an environment where they are portrayed in a better light. In addition, there is an attempt to ensure that the darker aspects of the original story are removed from the fan fiction. This is essential in the advancement of a sense of relief among the audience because it ensures that there is the creation of means through which the various characters are not always portrayed as being in a sad environment essentially from the beginning of the story to its end. Furthermore, the writing style is one that seeks to ensure that there is the advancement of narrative aspects in the story over dialogue. The story is essentially brought about in a narrative and descriptive style that for the most part ignores such aspects as dialogue. However, it allows for the greater understanding of the backgrounds of the various characters in the fan fiction and this is in such a way that it helps in getting the audience more involved in the story. In this way, it becomes possible for the audience to learn more about the background of the fan fiction and also become more interested in it. This interest is essential in encouraging the audience to want to read more of the story.

The text in the fan fiction has considerable potential because it has the ability to be developed into a wider story. It is able to capture the imagination of the audience in such a way that seeks to bring about a different version of the original story. The fan fiction is also essential in the advancement of means through which the audience can have a different view of the original story, and come to accept and become attached to some of the characters that they may have disliked in the canon version. For example, the text shows that the Dursleys are actually quite likeable individuals, and this is in contrast to the canon version, where the same individuals are portrayed as being unlikeable characters. However, there are considerable inter-textual similarities, especially in the latter part of the fan fiction story, where the storyline seems to merge with that of the canon version. A result of these similarities is that the audience comes to identify with the various characters while at the same time ensuring that they are able to feel that the fan fiction is essentially another version of the same story that they have been attached to all along.

The language used in the fan fiction post is extremely important in the advancement of the story. This is because it helps the audience to have a better understanding of the different scenarios of the story and the manner through which the various characters are developed. While the language use is for the most part descriptive, it allows the audience to make sure that they feel a sense of continuity since the story addresses characters with whom they are familiar. In addition, the language used also makes it possible for the audience to attain a sense of newness that essentially makes the story more accommodative to their needs. The language in the fan fiction serves the purpose of making sure that there is the creation of a sense of difference in the narrative of the story because it deviates from that of the canon story. Instead, it has a different tone and perspective when compared to the canon version and this is fundamental in helping in showing the considerably new direction that the author has taken when compared to the canon. Language is therefore essential in the development of the fan fiction story because it is not only simple, but it also helps in the advancement of means through which the audience becomes more interested in it.

The fan fiction can be considered to have a high score when it comes to audience interaction. This is because it enables the audience to have an alternative perspective to a story that they may have read; attracting them to a scenario where they are able to rekindle their love for the various characters within the canon. The canonical version of the story, which is much darker, is moderated by the fan fiction and this is in such a way that promotes the advancement of the various storylines while at the same time creating new ones. In this way, it becomes possible for the author to engage with the audience since the latter is able to enjoy the story while at the same time having a sense of freshness in the narrative. In addition, because the author is essentially writing a new piece and it is likely that it will get the interest of the audience, especially in a situation where the audience has a desire to have a level of continuity to their favorite story. A consequence is that the interaction with the audience in the fan fiction story is extremely good to such an extent that it not only captures their attention, but it also allows them to feel that there is a sense of newness as well as continuity in the story.

The effectiveness of the fan fiction story cannot be underestimated because it ensures that there is the advancement of a storyline that is extremely active when it comes to connecting with the audience. It allows for the creation of means through which to ensure that the audience is engaged in the narrative, including new aspects into the original narrative found in the canon version. An instance of this is where Harry Potter gets the lightning scar, not when he is a baby, but as a grown child when he is struck by lightning. While there is a level of narrative continuity in the fan fiction story, the author also goes in a completely different direction when it comes to the style. This is because the author seeks to ensure that the language that he uses is as simple as possible in order to not only connect with the audience, but also likely to provide for room that can be used in the editing process. In this way, it becomes possible for the author to shift away from the canon narrative to one that is his own original work.

George Orwell's Animal Farm - Old Major's Speech

One of the most interesting speeches in Animal Farm is the one made by Old Major shortly before his death. It is a speech that seeks to ensure that the animals on the farm come to realize their rights and to spur them towards rebelling against their human masters. A consequence of this speech is that it has considerable ramifications, since it ends up leading to the revolution against Jones, the owner of the farm and makes the animals take control over the entire farm. Old Major’s speech is an important aspect of the story because it is what sets up its plotline while at the same time ensuring that there is the advancement of the recognition of the rights of the animals and the need for them to exercise these rights against tyrannical administrators.

Old Major’s speech helps the animals on the farm to ensure that they recognize their rights. The speech is reminiscent of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto because it allows for an analysis of the lives that the animals are undergoing and creates proposals concerning the best way through which to improve their lives for the better. One of the most significant statements that Old Major makes is that the life of the animals is “miserable, laborious, and short” (Orwell and Batchelor 27). This is an important statement that shows the lives of animals essentially being in the service of their master rather than for themselves. A consequence is that Old Major seeks to show that the animals, as intelligent beings themselves, have a right to have happy lives, and that the circumstances within which they live is not fulfilling. The statement mentioned above is full of socialist ideas because it seeks to encourage its audience to consider the miserable conditions of their life and ensure that there is the advancement of their own interests first over that of their master. Old Major, like Karl Marx, is of the belief that those that control the means of production are the cause of all the problems that the animals are undergoing. Therefore it is essential to make sure that the animals take action to “Remove Man from the scene and the root cause of hunger and overwork is abolished forever” (Orwell and Batchelor 28). This statement is reminiscent of Marx’s belief that all social problems, especially the class divisions, could only be brought about through the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

Through his speech, Old Major proposes that the animals work towards the overthrow of Man from administering the farm. He states that “Man is the only creature that consumes without producing”, a statement that seems aimed at ensuring that that the animals’ ire is raised against their master (Orwell and Batchelor 28). This is especially considering that Old Major is seeking to bring about a revolution on the farm where the rule of Jones is brought to an end and the animals govern themselves. However, despite his noble perspective concerning the need to ensure that the rights of animals are respected, Old Major is shown to be an individual that has only a one-sided point of view. He does not consider that even without the presence of Man on the farm, it is possible that an animal might end up replacing him as a tyrant. He justifies his position by asking “Is it not crystal clear….that all the evil of this life of ours spring from the tyranny of human beings?” (Orwell and Batchelor 29-30). This is an extremely pertinent question because it shows Old Major’s way of thinking and enforces his belief that Farmer Jones is responsible for the miserable life that animals have to endure every day of their lives. Therefore, he proposes that the only way through which to promote animal interests is to bring an end to the authority of man since it will allow the animals to create a society that is just. Old Major seems to be an individual that believes in the essential goodness of animals and fails to consider that animals might eventually seek to have an advantage over one another, as seen later through Napoleon’s actions.

In conclusion, Old Major’s speech is essential in bringing about a situation where the course of the story is set. This is especially considering that the speech encourages the animals to overthrow their tyrannical master and establish a society that, in the beginning, is based solely on equality. However, what the speech fails to consider is that without the presence of Man on the farm, a power vacuum will occur and that it will end up being filled by animals that are essentially more tyrannical than Jones himself.

Shakespearean Plays and The Law as an Instrument of Good Governance or Oppression

Introduction

Law is an integral part of most Shakespearean plays and this is especially considering that many of these involve various aspects of the law. Most plays by Shakespeare show that he was an individual that was significantly fascinated by a diversity of legal aspects that are addressed in the way that the characters act. In addition, Shakespeare is an individual that seeks to show that law is an important part of the lives of individuals in society and that it is essential to ensure that they take notice of it. This is especially the case where in Shakespearean plays, law is an integral part of promoting both good governance and oppression because of the numerous legal technicalities that are involved in the process. In this paper, there will be an attempt to show that while law is supposed to be an instrument of good governance, it can also be used to bring about the oppression of certain individuals in society.

Law as an instrument of good governance

In certain Shakespearean plays, law appears to be an instrument of good governance because it enables them to defend themselves from false accusations. Law is an essential aspect of promoting good governance in society and this is a case that is advanced in Shakespearean plays, where individuals are required to be obedient to laws in order to ensure that there is a level of social order (Cunningham, 2017). Plays such as the Merchant of Venice and Julius Caesar show that adherence to the law is an important part of making sure that there is the advancement of social order as well as the avoidance of unnecessary conflict. It also promotes the advancement of means through which to ensure that there is the creation of initiatives that promote solution to problems without resorting to violence. The achievement of these goals through the use of law cannot be underestimated because it shows that it is a means of advancing the interests of good governance. Furthermore, law in Shakespeare can also be used in order to ensure that the interests of the weak are protected against the strong while at the same time helping those in positions of power to promote the advancement of justice in their own societies. A consequence of such a situation is that individuals come to the realization that it is only through the pursuit of law that it becomes possible to not only promote good governance, but also justice in the societies within which they live. 

 Law ensures that there is the advancement of justice in society since the individuals involved are provided with an opportunity to make sure that they are able to advance their individual interests without hurting those of others. One of the most significant cases of law as an instrument of good governance is seen in The Merchant of Venice, where despite Bassanio being maliciously accused of owing Shylock a debt, he is eventually proven to be innocent of the charges that have been brought against him and is acquitted (Hadfield, 2016). Bassanio’s acquittal comes about because of the actions of his wife, who disguises herself as a lawyer and successfully defends her husband against the charges that have been brought against him. That Bassanio is found not to be guilty following the trap that is set to ensnare him by Shylock shows that the law actually works and that it can be a means of ensuring that justice is achieved at all times. The capabilities displayed by Shakespeare in these play show that despite the attempt by certain individuals to make use of the law as an instrument of oppressing their fellows, the law can be made use of as a means of promoting social justice. Bassanio’s acquittal also allows for the development of a perspective concerning the motivations behind why certain individuals are capable of making use of law as a means of advancing their own interests to the detriment of that of others. In the end, as in the case of Shylock, these individuals end up being considered to be the villains of the plays and justice is served when they gain their just punishment.

The pursuit of law is essential for good governance in Shakespeare plays because it promotes the idea that individuals have to set aside their personal interests for the sake of their societies. One of the most important instances is seen in Julius Caesar, where the title character repeatedly refuses to be crowned king of Rome because it is against the laws of the state. Caesar is an individual that, despite his personal ambitions, is still willing to ensure that he attains them through the workings of the law rather than forcing them on the population (Jenkins, 2016). He is shown not to want to shake up the republican order that has been instrumental in governing Rome for centuries; resulting in a situation where despite his popularity and the desire by the population to have him crowned king, he refuses to be crowned in favor of retaining the status quo of the city. A consequence of his actions shows that there is need to ensure the advancement of law as a means of promoting good governance because it creates a situation where Caesar is put in circumstances where he is tempted to assume a role that could do away with the good governance of the city of Rome. However, his refusal to undertake the tempting task of being a king shows that Caesar is an individual that, despite being a dictator, seeks to ensure that there is the promotion of good governance in his home city. Therefore, in this play, Shakespeare promotes the idea that law can be used as a means of ensuring that there is good governance even though the instances where the society is willing to give up its interests because of the popularity of certain individuals.

Law as an instrument of oppression

Despite law being an instrument of good governance, there are instances where it can also be used as a means of promoting oppression. In Shakespeare plays, law is an important aspect of showing that situations arise where law ends up being a means of bringing about either the destruction or oppression of other individuals. One of the most significant parts of law is that it leads individuals towards taking advantage of it to ensure that their individual interests are protected over those of the weak (Omrani, 2016). Using law as a means of advancing individual interests at the expense of others often leads to the oppression of the latter. The result is that many of these individuals end up in situations where they are not able to undertake actions with as much freedom as they would like because to do so could bring about the ire of their oppressors. The role of oppressors in Shakespearean plays tends to be given to villainous rulers, as seen in the case of Claudius in Hamlet. However, there are instances where this role is given to individuals that are considered to be outsiders in their societies, as seen in the case of Shylock, a Jew living in Italy at a time when there was wide mistrust of Jews. Therefore, in Shakespeare plays, when law is addressed, it is done in such a way as to show that despite its being considered a source of good governance, it is also a means through which oppression can be brought about in society; essentially being an instrument of injustice.

Hamlet is one of the most significant Shakespearean plays that address the issue of law as an instrument of oppression. This is especially the case considering that the title character, Hamlet, is a victim of oppression despite not only being from the ruling class of his country, but also the son of the previous king (Thomas, 2014). Despite the privilege that he grows up with, Hamlet is shown to be a weak individual, whose uncle takes advantage of in order to assume the throne. Claudius, his uncle, is shown to be a conniving individual that makes use of every means possible to ensure that he not only kills his brother, but also pushes aside his nephew, who is the legitimate successor to his father, and instead assumes the throne himself. In this situation, Hamlet is depicted as being an extremely weak individual that is taken advantage of by his uncle in such a way that he ends up being denied his rights as the heir to the Danish throne. When his mother marries his uncle, it seems that Hamlet has essentially been pushed aside and he is shown to be an individual that harbors a lot of resentment for the injustice that he has suffered. The way that Claudius takes the throne is not only suspicious, but also goes against the law because the succession was supposed to go to the legitimate successor, Hamlet. Claudius’ succession to the throne shows that he has no regard for the law and that he can twist it in such a way that suits his own purposes to the detriment of his nephew.

The Merchant of Venice is another play that shows that law is an instrument of oppression rather than good governance. The case of Shylock’s false accusations against Bassanio shows that the law can be used as an instrument of oppression. Shylock’s malicious nature is brought forth through his desire to use the law as a means of destroying the life of Bassanio, an individual towards whom he holds considerable hatred for unexplained reasons. A consequence is that Shylock ends up seeking to ensure that he makes use of the law as a means of attaining his malicious objectives. When he requires that Bassanio pays him a debt by giving him a pound of flesh, Bassanio’s hands are tied because the orginal agreement between these two individuals stated that it was a requirement (Nam, 2015). Therefore, Bassanio’s hands are legally tied and Shylock makes use of this advantage over an individual that he considers his adversary to ensure that he seeks to end Bassanio’s life legally because the extraction of a pound of flesh would only mean death. The legal process that Bassanio is subjected to as a result shows that law can be made use of as an instrument of oppression rather than of good governance.

In Hamlet and The Merchant of Venice, there is a sense that law is an instrument of oppression rather than as a means of promoting good governance. Individuals are shown to be extremely vulnerable to the law to such an extent that it leads to a situation where they are placed in unjust situations. They essentially become victims of the malicious machinations of others who feel that they can take advantage of the situation for their own benefit. A result is that some characters are not only able to advance their selfish interests using the law, but there are instances where others are duped into undertaking actions that are illegal, leading to the mental oppression of the individuals involved. The case of the title character in Othello is an essential theme because it involves Othello being duped by Iago into killing his wife because of suspicion of infidelity and jealousy (Myers, 2013). Othello can therefore be considered to have committed a crime because of a moment of madness caused by Iago’s influencing him into breaking the law.

Conclusion

Law is an extremely important part of Shakespearean plays and in most cases, it dominates entire plays. A result of this situation is that it leads to the development of means through which to ensure that there is recognition of the various ways of how law can be both an instrument of good governance as well as that of oppression. The contrasts that are displayed in law show that it is essential for individuals to read Shakespeare with a mind open to the the way that legal matters end up affecting the lives of the characters within the plays. In this way, it becomes possible to make a connection of how Shakespeare is relevant to the lives of individuals in everyday life.

How to Improve Staff Communication by Rebecca Clarke

Organizational behavior is the conduct that is collectively displayed by those people who work in or work with a certain organization. These are collective behaviors which are taught to new employees once they join an organization which enshrine the ideals and objective of such an organization. Organizational behavior influences how the members of an organization conduct themselves in almost every aspect of their lives to create a good image and it affects how employees interact with each other, their clients and also those people who have a stake in the organization. The organizational behavior of an organization can also be defined as the values which contribute to the creation of an acceptable psychological and social environment within which to work (Chen & Yang, 2012). These values are based on the previous and existing knowledge of the organization which form the philosophies that hold the organization together. There may however be many different conflicting behaviors within an organization, especially the large ones, due to the different characteristics displayed by the various management teams that work in the organization. Organizational behavior may have both positive and negative effects on the individuals involved and these among others will be discussed in this paper. While the management of an organization plays a major role in the formulation of an organizational behavior, the employees of such an organization also have a role to play in its formulation.

According to the article, “How to... improve staff communication” by Rebecca Clarke, the organizational behavior involves the social expectations and standards which determine the values and beliefs which hold the people working within an organization together. Furthermore, this behavior is heavily influenced by the signs and symbols which an organization is recognized by and this determines the way the people who work within this organization behave, thus they are the embodiment of the organization’s behavior. A shared language is very important in the development of an organization’s behavior because language is the glue that holds the organization together and without a common means of communication within the organization, then the organization would collapse (Khalid, Jusoff, Othman, Ismail & Rahman, 2010). Organizational behavior is the single most important thing that determines whether and organization will be successful or not.

When one considers the article, one will find that there are four major elements of behavior which determine the success of an organization. These include the values which define the beliefs at the heart of organization’s behavior as well as the individuals within the organization who embody its values. In addition, the routine interactions between members of an organization provide some strong symbolic qualities that make them feel like part of a family. Finally, there is the informal communication system within the organization which has a massive effect on the organizational behavior (Tudorescu, Zaharia, Zaharia & Zaharia, 2010). Although it is a very difficult thing to happen, the behavior of an organization tends to be subject to change. This does not normally come easily and at times, these changes often take place because of diverse reasons which normally succeed in changing the organizational behavior. In order to change an organizational behavior, the management of an organization has to be aware of what exactly it takes to change the existing behavior because to make sudden changes might prove to be counterproductive. Moreover, the ability to change the behavior is in the hands of the top management of the organization and it is they who are responsible for the institution of such change (Luthans, 2002). Finally, organizational structure has a massive influence in the resolution of the dilemma of bureaucracy because although formal procedures are necessary for business integrity, bureaucracy has a tendency of stifling an organization’s independence of action and creativity.

The organizational behavior consists of many group behaviors which interact with one another for the sake of the running of the organization. It can, therefore, be said that the organizational culture of an organization might not be as homogenous as one would expect and may in fact consist of many coexisting behaviors which work hand in hand out of necessity. Each of these behaviors have created their own characteristics and sense of identity and an example of this is within the workplace where employees can easily classify themselves socially according to their areas of specialization, membership in a particular union, and age (Valle-Cabrera, 2006). Although these behaviors may be diverse, each of them is developed for the purpose of furthering the goals of the organization through different means. Through the initial interactions with new members of an organization, the older members tend to gradually transmit their behavioral values to these new members and in time, they become completely absorbed into the dominant behavior.

The organizational behavior may not necessarily be united due to the existence of different behaviors and it is from these behaviors that change to the overall organizational behavior develops. An example of this is when a new management takes over an organization with the aim of improving its image and making it a more popular brand. This new management will more likely target the behavior of the employees of this corporation because it is its core. The best way to do this would be for the new management to create a behavior which is counter to the current one whose aim would be to replace the existing one (Valle-Cabrera, 2006). Most of the people in this organization, after an initial resistance, would be forced to conform to this new behavior that is demanded of them since to do otherwise would be increasing the risk of losing their positions. Changing an organization’s behavior is one of the most difficult challenges that its leadership can face and this is because of an interlocking set of roles, processes, values and attitudes (Bambale, A.J., Shamsudin & Subramaniam, 2011). Changing a behavior is a large undertaking which should be done on a large scale in order to make it successful. All the organizational tools for changing the minds of those who work within the organization should be put in play and if they do not work, the use of coercion and punishments should be put in place as a last resort to ensure compliance with the new changes.

The managers of an organization should be very relaxed, and are most of the time indistinguishable from the other employees, and they can do this through not simply giving order to those under them, but should also accept feedback from them and should be ready to get alternatives to their decisions. This helps to show that although they have managers, the employees within an organization are in their later stages of development and are very comfortable outside their predefined roles, displaying high levels of motivation (Carlson, 2009). The managers should not attempt to put any verbal barriers between themselves and their employees and they, instead, should show genuine concern in the emotional and physical well being of their employees, something that is very rare in this type of environment.

An organization has to have a culture that is generally inviting to new employees and these are motivated to work in the organization. Organizations have to develop a laid-back environment within them and this is to ensure that the jobs are not very stressful to the employees. Another reason why employees are motivated to continue working for an organization should be the different shift schedules, which the management formulates so that they can accommodate every employee. Since most of the jobs found in many organizations in the modern world are low skilled, the management should ensure that any other employee can take over the other’s shift if they are not able to make it to work due to a need to attend to other more pressing obligations (Woodside, 2003). Numerous growth opportunities should be available within the organization, and this should be done through the training given to the employees at various levels as an additional motivator. The longer one works for an organization, the more the likelihood that he or she will ascend the ranks to the level of assistant manager or manager in just a few years.

The organizational behavior of a company should not only be able to influence the way through which it presents the products that it has to offer, but also for the great service. The employees of this organization, due to the high levels of motivation that they have as a result of its policies towards them, often end up the best kind of service to its customers, and this encourages these customers to keep coming. This is one of the reasons why, the profit margins of companies with good organizational behavior often keep on increasing over time and it serves to show just how very important it is to keep the employees motivated in their work because they will give their best as a result (Woodside, 2003). The key to an organization’s success in any market is that people everywhere often know what to expect when they opt for their services and this does not often mean that the organization has to resist change in behavior and refused to adapt when local customs require flexibility. It has become the trend for organizations to establish internal social networks to give employees the opportunity to connect with the management and to support each other (Wright, 2003). An example of such an initiative would be that of the McDonald’s Corporation, which established Station M, a social network strictly for its employees. Such internal social networks often provide a space for the organization’s employees to share ideas, best practices, as well as customer stories and there is often a forum section that allows dialogue between the organization’s corporate members and its employees as well as discussions between employees from the different departments within the said organization. Such internal social networks have proved successful in getting the employees more involved with both the management as well as their fellow employees.

Changes can be made to the organizational behavior through the strict management of all the new behaviors that are introduced within the organization. The implementation of change to the behaviour of employees within an organization is the process through which changes are made in an organization with the intention of achieving a certain result in the future (Pei-Lee & Sun, 2012). In addition, it can be said to be a process which comes to affect the daily activities of an organization, such as how it is managed and how teams and individuals work together in order to achieve the goals which have been set. It is a fact that there has been some dispute concerning whether change to the behavior of an organization can be changed, it is a fact that change is necessary for the continued thriving of an organization (Sani, 2013). This is the reason why, despite the resistance which may be encountered from those individuals within the organizations who have become too comfortable in the practice of a certain behavior, changes have to be implemented. This is the reason why there has to be a procedure which is followed in getting changes in an organization to be introduced with the aim of achieving approval from all those involved (Ionescu, 2008). The implementation of changes to the organizational behavior has come to be recognized as one of the most important aspects of the running of organization and this is the reason why a lot of literature concerning it has been written, as the different ways of conducting such changes have been suggested and analyzed.

The critical study of organisational behavior is extremely important for managers of organizations because of the fact that they get to learn how to better manage the changes that are affecting their organizations. It is well known facts that in most organizations, very few changes are effectively implemented by the managers who attempt to do so, with the success rate being so low that one would say that they are negligible (Latif, Abideen & Nazar, 2011). The reason for these low rates of success is that there is often resistance from the employees because of the fact that the management does not know how to address these changes before attempting to implement them. The management of many organizations often ignore the feelings of their employees when implementing changes and when they meet resistance, they often take an antagonistic stance towards such changes. This is because many managers in the current generation have not had an opportunity to make a critical study of organisational behaviour within their organisations and attempted to learn from these lessons how to manage their employees. In most cases, the management of an organisation tends to view resistance to some of their policies by their employees as being a way to sabotage the activities of the said organization, and often takes an adversarial approach towards it (Singh & Schick, 2007). In such cases, the management is often ignorant of the behaviour within the organisation, because if they had been aware of it, then they would have realized from the mistakes of their predecessors that an adversarial stance against employees does not often work. It is, therefore, very important for the management to make a study of the organisational behavior in order to be able to better manage changes within their organizations (Euwema, Evert Van & Bakker, 2003).

In conclusion, organizational behavior has great influence within the organization and it affects almost everything that happens in it. It functions as a unifying factor between the different members of an organization and it helps in the development of the organization’s image as a community of interests. It can be considered to be the core of an organization, determining its values, and objectives, which is a very important element in a modern organization. There has been speculation about whether or not an organization’s behavior can be managed and while some believe that it can be managed, others do not. It is my belief that the management of behavior within an organization is possible if it has a strong management at its head.