The First World War (WWI) Essay -- World War 1 I One

World War INothing was a salientger disaster than what happened in World War I. This was such a bad war because everyone in the world has affiliate, and the allies are in oath to help there ally when things get rough or that boorish is going to war. What I am here to inform you ab verboten is how one of the major countries and why one of the biggest powers in the world played a big part in World War I. This coun look for is no other than France, a country who has a lot of say in Europe, and has umteen allies through out the world.The war officially started when the assassination of Austrias Archduke Ferdinand on June 28 in Sarajevo. After this France came in on the side of the Russians and Serbians. As an ally of Russia they were strained to def peculiarity them, and after this other big powers got involved such as the Germans, Italians, Russians, Americans, and Japan. The true reason why France got involved was because Germany declared war on them. no(prenominal) of the state s that went to war realized how long it would last or how terrible the cost might be. Most thought it would be over in a few short months and that peace would return in 1915.After this the war got real nasty and the countries stood for no mercy. The cut discharged 180,000 kg of chlorine gas from 5,730 cylinders on the line between Steenstraat on the Yser Canal, through Bixschoote and Langemark, to Poelcappelle. This was the beginning of Chemical warfare. When the war starts the Germans are n early wiping the French out of the war rapidly taking out there soldiers. But the French forces were successful in achieving their objective at the Battle of Mons and the Battle of the Marne. As each side tried to outthink the other, France began to try and take over the Swiss border apart of France. With this great positioning it would be hard for the Germans to attack them from different angles.The French thought the war would end quick, because of the great advantage the allies thought they had over Germany and their other countries on there side. As soon as the Americans got involved in the war many people thought it would end even faster. Between the two armies in a ten month span, Bri... ...ost many of their best troops.At this time the French were doing well considering the Germans were fighting them face to face on one front, and the Germans had a better trained military than the French. On July 1, 1916, the British and French launched an offensive wave, which regularise an end to any German thoughts of continuing the Verdun Offensive, was launched against some of the heaviest German armies on the entire Western Front. The British commander, The French had a new course which gave the first use of tanks, and was preceded by the wars greatest artillery barrage. Despite these advantages, the general slaughter of allied troops which occurred is famous, with the British suffering 65,000 casualties on the first mean solar day alone. When the October rains finally pu t an end to the prolonged carnage, 400,000 British, 200,000 French and 450,000 Germans had become casualties. The Allies only captured a few miles of ground, and the Germans soon withdrew to their new Line in early 1917. Then the great French commander Sir John wasted no time to continue with his offensive ideas and gave the Germans no time to retreat and rest.

A Man with a Vision :: essays research papers

My search began with personal interest about a man by the name of Howard Coffin. I knew him as the founder of Pirates of the Spanish Main, a local organization that he established in 1931. His purpose in founding the club was to welcome dignitaries, promote the gold Isles, and aid the community. As a member of the club today, I thought it might be interesting to trace the roots back to the founder. Little did I know, Mr. Coffin was much more than just the founder of a club. He was also a man with a vision, who made huge strides in develop much of the Golden Isles. Mr. Coffin was born in 1873 and grew up on an Ohio farm, and in Ann Harbor, Michigan. He first discovered one of his visions while attending the University of Michigan. His vision was somehow to produce a low cost car, which would sell for less than a thousand dollars and that would attract a mass market. In 1902, Howard Coffin went to seduce for the Old Motor Works of Detroit, where he began his phenomenal career as a n automobile builder. After the Olds Company decided to stay with their expensive car, he worked at other companies until he was finally able to achieve his dream. With the financial support of the Hudson Department Stores of Detroit, he invented the Hudson Car. The car was the first model of a four-cylinder roadster that sell for about $900.The first visit that Mr. Coffin made to the coast of tabun was in 1910 to attend the Savannah Road Race. Early automobile manufacturers liked to slang their cars perform, but also they made it a vacation trip. While attending the races and enjoying their vacation, Mr. and Mrs. Coffin fell in love with the beauty and memorial of the Golden Isles of the Georgia coast. Since Mr. Coffin was well able to afford just about anything he wanted, he and his wife decided to purchase the 20,000 acres that made up Sapelo Island.They would earn a place to vacation, a wonderful place to entertain, and a reason to return to the Georgia coast.Howard Coffins real importance to Golden Isles history was in the vision that he had for development with the ongoing process of automobile roads. After the end of World War I, the sales of automobiles far surpassed the condition of roads for their travel.

The Original Style of Jon Scieszka :: Biography Biographies Essays

The sure Style of Jon ScieszkaJon Scieszka has an original style that is all his own. Many of his adjudges such as The True Story of the 3 Little Pigs, The Stinky Cheese Man and early(a) Fairly Stupid Tales, and The Frog Prince Continued fox led some(prenominal) people to believe that he has created a new genre of childrens literature victimisation unique perspectives to retell classic fairy tales. But what motivated Scieszka to frame an author? And how does he come up with his innovative ideas? I will dish up these questions by discussing Scieszkas many inspirations including his teaching career, students, and his family. Scieszka began his love for books early on in his life when he and his mother spent time together reading. It was during these times that maven of his favorite authors emerged. Dr. Seuss stood out because he was the first author that I cognize was a different person - that there actually was a person who wrote the book (Scieszka). It was then that he deci ded that creating books for others to read would be entertaining. He did non give this idea much thought until after he became an elementary teacher. That was when he reconsidered the idea of writing childrens books.As a plump for grade teacher he learned many things about children including what kind of books they enjoyed and which ones did not even musical accompaniment their attention. As Scieszka himself said, ...theres nothing more discriminating than a group of second graders sitting on the floor. And theyll tell you if they dont like it, or if its boring, or if its stupid, or if it doesnt bedevil sense (Scieszka). This helped to shape his ideas as to what would be interesting and fun for children to read. Students have done more than just inspire him to write. Many have helped give him ideas. In Math Curse after her teacher tells her that almost everything has math tangled in it the narrator discovers how true the statement is as her world explodes into a monstrosity ma th problem. Scieszka credits this idea to some of his less accomplished students and how they dig math (Scieszka).Another source for his ideas comes from within his own house. His own daughter has unwittingly inspired him on at least one occasion. When she was small she enjoyed the hot story of The Gingerbread Man. After an endless amount of times of rereading the story Scieszka wondered What would happen if the noblewoman ran out of gingerbread and had to make him out of something else?The Original Style of Jon Scieszka Biography Biographies EssaysThe Original Style of Jon ScieszkaJon Scieszka has an original style that is all his own. Many of his books such as The True Story of the 3 Little Pigs, The Stinky Cheese Man and Other Fairly Stupid Tales, and The Frog Prince Continued have led several people to believe that he has created a new genre of childrens literature using unique perspectives to retell classic fairy tales. But what motivated Scieszka to become an author? And how does he come up with his innovative ideas? I will answer these questions by discussing Scieszkas many inspirations including his teaching career, students, and his family. Scieszka began his love for books early on in his life when he and his mother spent time together reading. It was during these times that one of his favorite authors emerged. Dr. Seuss stood out because he was the first author that I realized was a different person - that there actually was a person who wrote the book (Scieszka). It was then that he decided that creating books for others to read would be entertaining. He did not give this idea much thought until after he became an elementary teacher. That was when he reconsidered the idea of writing childrens books.As a second grade teacher he learned many things about children including what kind of books they enjoyed and which ones did not even keep their attention. As Scieszka himself said, ...theres nothing more discriminating than a group of second grade rs sitting on the floor. And theyll tell you if they dont like it, or if its boring, or if its stupid, or if it doesnt make sense (Scieszka). This helped to shape his ideas as to what would be interesting and fun for children to read. Students have done more than just inspire him to write. Many have helped give him ideas. In Math Curse after her teacher tells her that almost everything has math involved in it the narrator discovers how true the statement is as her world explodes into a giant math problem. Scieszka credits this idea to some of his less accomplished students and how they perceive math (Scieszka).Another source for his ideas comes from within his own house. His own daughter has unknowingly inspired him on at least one occasion. When she was small she enjoyed the popular story of The Gingerbread Man. After an endless amount of times of rereading the story Scieszka wondered What would happen if the lady ran out of gingerbread and had to make him out of something else?

Lowering the Drinking Age to Eighteen Essays -- essays research papers

In 1984 Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole lobbied for all states to raise the legal drink age from eighteen to blackjack oak. The consequence for a state not raising the age was to lose a portion of their federal highway funding. I in person believe that the drinking age being twenty- whizz is reasonable care when the voting age was twenty-one, if I can go to war and die for my country, accordingly I should be sufficient to go to the bar and buy a beer. One of the biggest problems in our society is under age drinking. They tell us how we arent allowed to drink, that we arent old enough or mature enough to do it, but the more adults talk ab place it, the more teenagers want to do it. When a kid goes off to college, its expected that he is going to drink. Since most kids go int know what a hangover feels like, or what its like to get the spins, they dont know their limits and when they need to stop. That is when you get people doing stupid topics because they dont know a ny better. The most important thing for a young drinker to know is his or her limit. Any eighteen year old can drink responsibly if they have a lilliputian bit of experience. Unfortunately most parents dont want their kids to drink, so we have to learn the hard way with tabu anyone there to tell us to check down or to stop. For some kids that means getting sick one night and realizing that they shouldnt drink that overmuch next time, but for some others the head just never hits them, and they drink too much and that is when the trouble starts. Last Saturday night a friend of mine drank too much while she was out camping. She started to pass out and was puking all over herself. The more experienced kids in the group realized that she was in trouble and they rushed her back to campus where we were able to get her cleaned off and taken care of for the night.Many people argue that when the drinking age was raised to twenty-one, that alcohol related deaths among people under twenty-o ne dropped from 43% to 21%. What they dont tell you is that alcohol related deaths among people between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-five went up almost as much as the other group went down. Experience is the biggest tool in fighting the problems with underage drinking. The kid who goes to college without ever having gotten drunk is going to go all out at his or her first par... ...er curfews or can stay at a friends house. This next piece of information is based on my personal opinion and experiences. For a high school student, alcohol is very hard to get. Some kids get lucky and have older siblings or friends who go forth buy it for them. For almost everyone else at that age, alcohol is not a big part of their everyday life, and they turn to a much easier to get substance. Marijuana is one of the most commonly used drugs by high school students. It is a lot easier to get than alcohol, and for most kids it doesnt seem as dangerous. You dont wake up with a hangover, and you a rent as impaired as you are when you are drunk. Most kids will drive when they are high and not even think twice about it. There are numerous reasons why the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen, and there are many reasons why it should stay twenty-one. There is proof that both sides of the argument work. In other countries without a drinking age or with a lowered one, you dont hear about as many drunk driving accidents as you do in the United States. Maybe the drinking in the U.S. is just like the violence, as Michael Moore put it, whats so different about us that makes it happen?

Iago as a Character in Othello :: essays papers

Iago as a Character in Othello Perhaps the most interesting and exotic character in the tragic play Othello, by William Shakespeare, is Honest Iago. Through some carefully thought-out words and actions, Iago is able to manipulate others to do things in a way that benefits him and moves him closer toward his goals. He is the main driving force in this play, pushing Othello and everyone else towards their tragic end. Iago is not your ordinary villain. The role he plays is rather unique and complex, far from what one great power expect. Iago is smart. He is an expert judge of people and their characters and uses this to his advantage. For example, he knows Roderigo is in love with Desdemona and figures that he would do anything to have her as his own. Iago says about Roderigo, Thus do I ever make my fool my purse. Act I, Scene III, absorb 355 By playing on his hopes, Iago is able to swindle money and jewels from Roderigo, making himself a substantial profit, speckle using Roderigo to forward his other goals. He also thinks quick on his feet and is able to improvise whenever something unexpected occurs. When Cassio takes hold of Desdemonas hand before the arrival of the fasten Othello, Iago says, With as little a web as this will I ensnare as great a fly as Cassio. Act II, Scene I, by-line 163 His cunning and craftiness make him a truly dastardly villain indeed. Being as smart as he is, Iago is quick to recognize the advantages of organized religion and uses it as a tool to forward his purposes. Throughout the story he is commonly known as, and commonly called, Honest Iago. He even says of himself, I am an honest man.... Act II, Scene III, force 245 Trust is a very powerful emotion that is easily abused. Othello, holds him well/The better shall Iagos purpose work on him. pg. 1244, Line 362 Iago is a master of abuse in this case turning peoples trust in him into tools to forward his own goals. His medcine works Thus credulo us fools are caught.... pg. 1284, Line 44 Iago slowly poisons peoples thoughts, creating ideas in their heads

Beer Wars Essay

Beer Wars is documentary about the American beer industry and how the 3 largest US breweries try to ride out the competition. This documentary covers how lobbyists are used to curb the beer market and drive out sm aloneer breweries such as Dogfish Head Brewery, Stone Brewery, and Moonshot all producers of craft beer. The documentary describes how a 3 tier system was put into shopping center to separate the powers of selling beer and prevent a monopoly but the laws that were put into place to prevent the monopoly, infact, promoted the size and strength of the largest beer corporations.An oligopoly was formed and maintained between Anheuser Busch, Coors, and Miller. Porters Five Forces Model is a business strategy that was covered in Beer Wars. Anat Barron described how difficult it was for diminutive craft beer makers to be new entrants to the beer industry. When Anheuser Busch felt the least bit threatened, they had the capital and access to distribution channels that the smaller breweries did not have.The craft breweries found it greatly difficult to deal with the big 3 because they were not a substitute for the Big 3s product, they were a small competitor. Anheuser Busch controlled the bargaining power because they were able to keep prices down due to their size and pockets while small craft breweries had to be more expensive because of the quality and alimony that went into it on top of having to pay a higher rate for ingredients compared to the other large corporations.To cite an example of the deep pockets that the big 3 had, Anheuser Busch came out with beer with caffeine in response to Moonshot beer, which was a craft beer (and the first of its kind). It can be viewed as theft but they had the pockets to Moonshot out. They targeted the bars and stores that carried Moonshot and gave them free cases of Anheuser Buschs rendition of Moonshot beer. Though illegal some bars took it because it was free and busch had better prices to drive moonshot out.Th e intensity of competitive rivalry was at an all-time high when it came to Anheuser Busch trying to plenty out the smaller breweries. The big 3 breweries managed to control the market share through advertising on tv , sponsorships, and on the store shelves through strategical placement of their product. The three tier system that separates the powers of selling beer delves into how lobbyists are used to control the beer market. Anheuser Busch uses their deep pockets to get rid of competition from small craft beer makers and control consumer choice.They purchase other beer corporations. Although only touched upon briefly towards the end of the film, Anat touched upon how Coors and Miller had to go into a 50/50 sumt venture to compete with Anheuser Busch. Coors and Miller scanned the beer environment and realized that they could not keep a myopic view and hope for things to turn around. They knew that in order for each to survive, they needed to join forces. They were easier for An heuser to take out individually but stronger as a whole.

Abusive Supervisory Reactions to Coworker Relationship Conflict

The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect The Leadership Quarterly j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a inglorious executive programy programy reactions to co failer family kind inpatient? ict Kenneth J. Harris a,? , Paul Harvey b, K. Michele Kacmar cIndiana University Southeast, School of Business, 4201 Grant Line Road, New Albany, IN 47150, USA cargon Department, Whitte much School of Business and E scamomics, University of New Hampshire, USA Department of Man senescement and Marketing, Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, 143 Alston H every(prenominal), Box 870225, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0225, USA b c a a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t This study extends seek on shameful lapse by exploring how supervisor reports of determineflict with their co travelers argon link up to opprobrious doingss and resulting outcomes.We hold research on displaced onslaught, abductflict, and loss leadermember exchange (LMX) theory to formulate our hypotheses. Results from two samples of 121 and 134 equaliseed supervisor suppress dyads support the idea that supervisors experiencing co practiseer kindred nobbleflict atomic number 18 promising to engage in inglorious behaviors directed toward their subordinates and that LMX graphic symbol moderates this relationship. Additionally, ignominious checktrol was associated with decreased scat trial and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB).Results in any case indicate that in two samples disgraceful memorizetrol mediates the relationships mingled with supervisor reports of co puzzle outer relationship filchflict and OCB, and in iodine sample mediates the association between supervisor-reported co wrencher relationship ascertainflict and work stew. 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Available online 10 August 2011 Keywords opprobrious supervision Coworker relationship fiddle? ict Multi-level 1. Introduction disgraceful supervision, or the prolonged hostile treatment of subordinates, has been recognized as a signi? ant threat to employee well being and productivity in both the popular press (e. g. , Elmer, 2006) and in organizational research (e. g. , Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002 Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007 Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, & Kacmar, 2007 Hoobler & Brass, 2006 Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007 Tepper, 2000, 2007 Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001 Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002). Behaviors that draw under the umbrella of disgraceful supervision, such as sabotaging, yelling at, or ignoring subordinates, have been linked to an array of ostracise convictsequences (see Tepper, 2007 for an over vista).Research to a fault educes that these forms of tread are alarmingly special K in modern organizations (Namie & Namie, 2000 Tepper, 2007). The purpose of this study is to develop and test a conceptual example that expands our knowledge of antecedents, moderators, and consequences of disgraceful supervision. We also build on past research showing that supervisors relationship con? icts quite a little trickle down to subordinates in the form of abusive behaviors (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007). Speci? cally, we test the ruling that supervisors who experience relationship con? ct, de? ned as interpersonal tension, animosity, and annoyance (Jehn, 1995, p. 258), with their coworkers reply by abusing subordinates. The proposed relationship between supervisor-level coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision is rooted in the notion of displaced aggression, which occurs when the reaction to an unpleasant outcome or behavior from one source is redirected to a second source (Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine, & Pollock, 2003 Tedeschi & Norman, 1985).Consistent with Tepper (2007), we argue that the relatively weak retaliatory post of subordinates, as compared to coworkers, increases t he likelihood that relationship con? ict-driven frustration give be vented at subordinates. We qualify this assumption, however, by arguing that supervisors who experience coworker relationship con? ict will not behave abusively toward all of their subordinates. We explore ? Corresponding author. E-mail addresses emailprotected edu (K. J. Harris), Paul. emailprotected edu (P. Harvey), emailprotected ua. edu (K. M. Kacmar). 1048-9843/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved. doi10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2011. 07. 020 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 1011 this idea by examining leadermember relationship (LMX) bore as a moderator of the relationship between supervisors levels of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision. Finally, we advance the living research by investigating two supervisorrated employee outcomes (work ride, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB)), one of which has not previously been examined in th e context of abusive supervision.These outcomes were chosen as they extend the publications and we were interested in actual behaviors directed toward the seam/task (work effort and task-foc utilize OCB). We examine these relationships, shown in Fig. 1, in two separate samples of matched supervisorsubordinate dyads. Thus, the period study makes several contri exactlyions to the literature. First, we examine the in? uence of con? ict between supervisors on subordinate reports of abusive supervision. Examining this relationship is fundamental because although coworker relationship con? cts have negative outcomes, studies have yet to investigate how supervisors experiencing these con? icts treat their subordinates. Second, we investigate LMX quality as a relationship multivariate that changes how supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are related. Third, we extend the nomological network of abusive supervision by examining the outcomes of work effort and OCB. Finally, we investigate the potential for abusive supervision to mediate the associations between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and distal consequences.Thus, this study takes a ? rst musical note toward explaining how (through the intermediary mechanism of abusive supervision) supervisors experiences of coworker relationship con? ict ultimately impact important job outcomes. 2. Abuse as a displaced response to coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision is de? ned as prolonged hostile treatment toward subordinates, excluding physical fierceness (Tepper, 2000). Research indicates that supervisors who perceive that they are victims of fundamental interactional or procedural injustice, both of which may be associated with coworker relationship con? ct (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001), are relatively more than than probably than new(prenominal)s to evil their subordinates (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007 Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambe rt, 2006). Tepper, Duffy, Henle, and Lambert (2006) argued that this trickle-down power, in which supervisors frustrations are channeled into abusive behaviors targeted at subordinates, may occur because subordinates are a relatively reliable target toward which supervisors roll in the hay vent their frustrations (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006).This argument suggests abusive supervision may be a response to frustrating workplace events such as coworker relationship con? ict. Coworker con? ict has been linked to undesirable emotional states and nooky negatively impact interpersonal relationships (e. g. , Bergmann & Volkema, 1994 Deutch, 1969). Emotion research suggests that the anger and frustration associated with interpersonal con? ict notify conjure verbal (e. g. , shouting) and behavioral (e. g. , theft, sabotage, violence) aggression toward those who stimulate the con? ct (e. g. , Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002 Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939 Fox & Spector, 1999 Greenberg, 1990 Spector, 1975). Many of these behaviors, with the exception of physical violence, would fall under Teppers (2000) de? nition of abusive supervision if aimed at subordinates. Drawing on ? ndings from research on displaced aggression we argue that, due to the relative power of supervisors coworkers, these relationship con? ict-driven behaviors index, in concomitant, be targeted at subordinates.Displaced aggression occurs when individuals experience mistreatment from one party and respond by mistreating a second party (Hoobler & Brass, 2006, Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine & Pollock, 2003, Twenge & Campbell, 2003). Several triggers of displaced aggression have been identi? ed, including social rejection (Twenge & Campbell, 2003) and negative feedback (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Hoobler and Brass (2006) also showed that abusive supervision at work finish promote displaced aggression toward family members at home. We examine abusive supervision as a form of displaced aggression ather than a predictor, although both conceptualisations are logical. Displaced aggression is often triggered by unpleasant workplace events (e. g. , Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine & Pollock, 2003) and abusive supervision ? ts this criteria. We argue that abusive supervision also can ? t the criteria of displaced aggression if it is triggered by events beyond the control of subordinates, such as the twistrs coworker relationship con? ict. Thus, abusive supervision can probably be both a cause of displaced aggression and a type of displaced aggression. cable Dashed lines re give way hypothesized talk terms linkages supervisor-Rated promoter Work Effort Supervisor-Rated Coworker Conflict Abusive Supervision Supervisor-Rated Subordinate TaskFocused OCB Moderator Leader-Member Exchange Fig. 1. Hypothesized model. 1012 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 As Tepper, Duffy, Henle and Lambert (2006) argued, abusive supervision can be used as a agent for run frustration because subordinates have relatively low levels of retaliatory power and, thitherfore, serve as a lower-risk target for vent behaviors than do employees in positions of greater hierarchal power.Victim precipitation research also supports this logic, indicating that displaced aggression is often targeted at those who are uneffective or unwilling to defend themselves, as is likely the case among subordinates who can be disciplined and terminated by their supervisors (e. g. , Aquino, 2000). This desire to vent frustration at individuals who are unassociated with the initial con? ict, similar to the anecdotal notion of recoil the dog after a bad day at work, can be understood in the context of displaced aggression. Coworker relationship con? ct is a potent source of stress and frustration (Thomas, 1976, 1992) and, because these are unpleasant, individuals are motivated to engage in coping behaviors that will diminish their presence (Kemper, 196 6). These emotion-driven coping behaviors can often take the form of hostile behaviors such as sabotage (Ambrose, Seabright & Schminke, 2002) and verbal assaults (Douglas & Martinko, 2001). Thus, coworker relationship con? ict may trigger aggressive behaviors (e. g. , yelling at others) that serve a coping function. Thomas (1976) noted, however, that the relative power of the parties to a con? ct in? uences the manner in which both parties will respond. When authorized power levels are equal, as in the case of coworkers, hostile responses are likely to be met with retaliation although it is possible that the target of retaliation will respond with additional hostility, creating an escalating cycle of con? ict. Subordinates, on the other hand, are often reluctant to respond in kind to hostile supervisor behaviors for fear of losing their jobs. The fact that subordinates are not the cause of the supervisors frustration, that is, the frustration is caused by supervisors con? ct with t heir coworkers, may have little impact on the behavioral response if the behavior is largely motivated by emotion as opposed to logic. That is, the desire to vent anger over coworker relationship con? ict using a galosh target may override concerns that subordinates are not the logical targets for retaliation, given that they are not the cause of the con? ict. Based on these arguments, we predict dead reckoning 1. Supervisors reports of coworker relationship con? ict are positively associated with abusive supervisory behaviors, as rated by subordinates. 2. 1. The moderating in? ence of LMX relationship quality Thomas (1976, 1992) argued that a conceptualization process occurs between the con? ict experience and the behavioral outcome in which information is processed and behavioral options are evaluated. Although this cognitive process is likely to re limn a across-the-board range of information, we argue that an evaluation of relationships with subordinates is particularly rele vant when behaviors toward these individuals are concerned. LMX theory suggests that the quality of leadermember relationships varies from high to low (Dienesch & Liden, 1986 Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).Subordinates in high quality exchanges are seen more favorably and satisfy advantages from their supervisors that their low quality LMX counterparts do not (e. g. , Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). As such, members in high quality exchanges receive preferential treatment from supervisors who are motivated to maintain these productive relationships. We expect that supervisors who experience high levels of coworker relationship con? ict may become abusive toward subordinates, but will be selective in choosing which subordinates to target. Abusive supervisory behaviors generally have a negative effect on ictims levels of want and attitudes toward their jobs (e. g. , Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002 Schat, Desmarais, & Kelloway, 2006). Although it can be argued that effective managers would no t want to risk these consequences with any employees, LMX theory would suggest that supervisors are especially motivated to maintain effective relationships with their high quality LMX subordinates. We argue, therefore, that supervisors who are frustrated by coworker relationship con? ict and who choose to react in an abusive manner will generally choose low quality LMX subordinates as their targets.Put differently, we expect that when con? ict-driven abuse occurs, members in low quality exchanges will experience it more lovesomely and frequently than members in high quality exchanges. legal expert and victim precipitation theories provide additional support for this argument (e. g. , Aquino, 2000 Bies & Moag, 1986). From a justice perspective, instead of perceiving members of low quality LMX relationships as less risky targets for abuse, it can also be argued that supervisors ? nd it easier to justify abuse toward these employees. Members of low quality exchanges are often charac terized by relatively low performance levels (e. . , Deluga & Perry, 1994 Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993), and it capacity be argued that supervisors who use abusive behaviors to cope with relationship con? ict-driven frustration will witness about justi? ed in reduceing on these employees. That is, supervisors might hack the abuse by convincing themselves that relatively lowperforming subordinates in low quality LMX relationships deserve the abusive behavior. Victim precipitation research also suggests that several characteristics common among low quality LMX subordinates make them likely targets of abuse.Although provocative and threatening behaviors have been linked to retaliatory aggression (e. g. , Aquino & Byron, 2002 Tepper, 2007), more salient to our focus on leadermember relationships is the precipitation research indicating that abusive individuals often target those who are seen as weak or defenseless. Individuals who are hesitant to defend themselves or linear pers pective themselves or their situations negatively appear to draw the attention of aggressive individuals (Aquino, 2000 Olweus, 1978 Rahim, 1983 Tepper, 2007).As discussed above, the hierarchical nature of their relationship likely promotes the former tendency among subordinates, making them relatively safe targets for abuse. Members in low quality exchanges, in particular, might be unwilling to further jeopardize their relationship with their supervisors by retaliating against abuse and might also impute their undesirable status, promoting the negative perceptions of their workplace competence and situation (e. g. , Ferris, Brown, & Heller, 2009) that can provoke victimization. akin(predicate) to our arguments concerning displaced abuse of subordinates, victim precipitation research suggests that these aggressors might wish to engage in abusive behavior as a means to K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 1013 preserve their social standing and bolster pe rceptions of their control over a situation (e. g. , Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996 Felson, 1978). As such, this line of research reinforces the notion that subordinates might be targeted for displaced abuse and suggests that low quality LMX subordinates are especially likely to be viewed as vulnerable, and therefore relatively safe, targets.Based on these arguments, we predict Hypothesis 2. The relationship between supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict and member-reported abusive supervision is moderated by LMX, such that the positive relationship is steadyer when LMX relationship quality is lower. 2. 2. Outcomes of abusive supervision The outcome portion of our conceptual model, shown in Fig. 1, examines the effects of abusive supervisory responses to coworker relationship con? ict on work effort and OCB. While we do not posit that abusive supervision is the unless figure mediating the relationships between supervisors coworker relationship con? ct and these outc omes, we argue that abuse can serve as an explanatory mechanism and explain a relevant amount of variance in each consequence. Abusive supervision is a negative workplace event that, like con? ict, can have negative attitudinal and behavioral consequences (Tepper, 2007 Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008 Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007). It has been argued that these outcomes are caused by the stress and emotional strain associated with abuse from individuals in a position of power (e. g. Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002 Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter & Kacmar, 2007 Tepper, 2000). Further, Duffy, Ganster and Pagon (2002) be evidence suggesting that abuse promotes diminished self-ef? cacy. As we discuss in the following sections, each of these consequences of abusive supervision can be logically linked to the outcomes depicted in Fig. 1. 2. 2. 1. Work effort Because abusive supervision can diminish victims con? dence in their abilities (Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002), it fo llows that motivation to exert high levels of effort at work will likely decrease in response to abuse.Abusive supervisors, who by de? nition are consistent in their abuse (Tepper, 2000), might eventually wear employees down with a steady onslaught of aggressive behavior (e. g. , yelling, criticizing), reducing their con? dence and motivation. Similarly, it may be that over period abusive supervision promotes emotional exhaustion (Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter & Kacmar, 2007 Tepper, 2000), a condition characterized by diminished emotional and physical coping abilities and closely associated with job burnout (Brewer & Shapard, 2004 Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003).Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter and Kacmar (2007) argued that this relationship was likely due to the persistent assault on employees feelings and ef? cacy perceptions (Savicki & Cooley, 1983) associated with abusive supervision. When emotional exhaustion occurs, individuals demonstrate diminished motivation and a reduced ability to handle disagreeable work events, promoting a reduction in work effort (Brewer & Shapard, 2004 Kahill, 1988 Leiter & Maslach, 1988).Using a different lens to view the abusework effort association, employees might also view abusive supervision as a form of psychological contract breach, as subordinates generally do not expect to be step by those given the authority to supervise them (Tepper, 2000). When employees perceive that a breach has taken place, they often feel less compelled to ful? ll their obligation to exert high levels of work effort (Harris, Kacmar & Zivnuska, 2007). 2. 2. 2. Citizenship behaviors The ? nal outcome depicted in Fig. 1 concerns the negative in? ence of coworker relationship con? ict-driven abuse and subordinates propensity to engage in OCB. This predicted relationship is found on research indicating that abusive supervision is associated with factors, including decreased organizational commitment, poor work-related attitudes, and injustice perceptions (Aryee, Chen, Sun & Debrah, 2007 Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002 Schat, Desmarais, & Kelloway, 2006 Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002), that can inhibit citizenship behaviors (Ambrose, Seabright & Schminke, 2002 Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002).Victims of abusive supervision often feel that they have been treated unjustly (Tepper, 2000), a perception that is associated with reduced levels of OCB (Moorman, 1991). As Judge, Scott, and Ilies (2006) argued, unjust treatment is likely to qualify as a negative affective event and can therefore provoke a retaliatory behavioral response. One such response could logically be the withholding of citizenship behaviors, which are not a requirement of the job and could run counter to the goal of retaliation by making the supervisors job easier (e. g. , Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002).In support of this reasoning, additional research indicates that abusive supervision motivates retaliatory behaviors such as workplace deviance and aggression that run contr ary to the notion of citizenship behavior (Dupre, Inness, Connelly, Barling, & Hoption, 2006 Schaubhut, Adams, & Jex, 2004). Based on these arguments, we predict Hypothesis 3. Abusive supervision is negatively related to supervisor reports of subordinate work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors. 2. 3. The mediating role of abusive supervision We have argued that relationship con? ct between supervisors and their coworkers is associated with abusive supervisory behaviors, and that such behaviors have negative implications for victims levels of work effort and OCB. Implicit in this line of reasoning is the notion that coworker relationship con? ict at the supervisor level is ultimately associated with decreased levels of 1014 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 effort and OCB at the subordinate level, and that abusive supervision acts a intermediator between these variables. More speci? ally, the negative effects of supervisors relationship c on? ict with their coworkers are predicted to manifest themselves in the form of abusive behaviors that negatively affect employees attitudes and behaviors, promoting negative subordinate outcomes. Thus, while a relationship between a supervisors level of coworker relationship con? ict and subordinates levels of effort and OCB may seem somewhat abstract, we suggest that coworker relationship con? ict-driven abusive supervision provides an intermediary link between these variables.Based on these arguments, we predict Hypothesis 4. Abusive supervision mediates the negative relationships between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors. 3. Method 3. 1. precedents and procedures The samples utilized in this study were from two different divisions of a state government. The division in pattern 1 was prudent for handling disease related issues (e. g. , STDs, immunizations, tuberculosis), whereas the division in taste 2 ha ndled environmental health related issues (e. g. , radiation, clean water).To begin the data collection efforts, the theatre director of each division sent an email to all employees in their branch. The email in make the potential respondents of the studys purpose, that participation was voluntary, and that the results would be con? dential. After this email, the researchers sent a personalized message again explaining the goal of the survey, the con? dentiality of responses, and a web link to the survey. Respondents were asked to complete the survey during the next month. Respondents were required to provide their supervisors name to match supervisorsubordinate responses.At the same epoch, supervisors were asked to provide ratings on each of their direct reports. In Sample 1, eliminating responses with missing data or those that were unable to be matched (i. e. , we true a subordinate response, but not a matching supervisor response) resulted in a sample size of 121 (58% respons e rate). Subordinates were 68% female, the mean(a) age was 41. 68 years, the fair job advance was 3. 38 years, and their average organizational promote was 5. 22 years. In total, 28 supervisors provided ratings, resulting in an average of 4. 32 ratings per supervisor.For the supervisors, the demographic breakdown was 57% female, the average age was 47. 91 years, the average job tenure was 4. 79 years, and their average organizational tenure was 7. 73 years. After the voidance of unusable responses in Sample 2, our usable sample size was 134 (64% response rate). Participants in Sample 2 were 60% male, had an average age of 46. 04 years, average job tenure of 7. 04 years, and average organizational tenure of 11. 51 years. Forty-four supervisors provided ratings, which resulted in an average of 3. 05 ratings per supervisor.The demographic breakdown for the supervisors was 75% male, an average age of 49. 29 years, average job tenure of 9. 64 years, and average organizational tenure of 16. 26 years. 3. 2. Measures Unless otherwise noted, a 5-point Likert home (anchors strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)) was used for all survey items. Scales were coded with high values representing high levels of the constructs. 3. 3. Subordinate greenbacks 3. 3. 1. Abusive supervision In both samples abusive supervision was measured with six items from Teppers (2000) measure.We were unable to use the full 15-item measure due to management concerns about the surveys overall length. Thus, we had experts in the area look at the content of each of the items, and we chose 6 items that outflank captured the full range of abusive supervisory behaviors. The items we chose were My supervisor makes negative comments about me to others, My supervisor gives me the silent treatment, My supervisor expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another(prenominal) reason, My supervisor is rude to me, My supervisor breaks promises he/she makes, and My supervisor puts me down in fron t of others. In an effort to establish the validity of our shortened subdue, we compared our reduced photographic plate to the full measure using the data from the Tepper (2000) article. 1 We found that the full 15-item scale was correlated with our 6-item scale at . 96. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 90 for Sample 1 and . 92 for Sample 2. 3. 3. 2. Leadermember exchange We used Liden and Maslyns (1998) 12-item leadermember exchange multidimensional scale to measure exchange quality in both samples. A sample item included My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 94 for Sample 1 and . 92 for Sample 2. 1 We thank Ben Tepper for catering us to use his original data for this correlation. K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 1015 3. 4. Supervisor measures 3. 4. 1. Coworker relationship con? ict In both samples supervisors rated their relationship con? icts with th eir coworkers using the 4-item Jehn (1995) scale. A sample item included Is there tension among your coworkers? These questions were included in a section of the survey here the supervisors were answering questions about their attitudes, behaviors, and relationships with their coworkers. This section was separate from the section where supervisors commented on their subordinates, thus making it clear that these relationship con? ict questions were focused on coworkers at their level in the organization (e. g. , managers relationship con? icts with other managers). The response scale for this construct was Not at all (1) to To a very great extent (5). The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 95 for Sample 1 and . 94 for Sample 2. 3. 4. 2.Work effort In both samples supervisors rated subordinates work effort using Brown and Leighs (1996) 5-item scale. A sample item was When theres a job to be done, this subordinate devotes all his/her energy to getting it done. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 93 for Sample 1 and . 94 for Sample 2. 3. 4. 3. Organizational citizenship behaviors Supervisors responded to Settoon and Mossholders (2002) 6-item scale to measure subordinate task-focused OCB in both samples. A sample item was This subordinate assists coworkers with heavy work loads even though it is not part of the job. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 84 for Sample 1 and . 81 for Sample 2. 3. 5. condition variables We controlled for four variables, all measured from the subordinate, in an effort to minimize potentially spurious relationships. The variables we controlled for were age (measured in years), job tenure (measured in months), organizational tenure (measured in months), and supervisorsubordinate relationship tenure (measured in months). 3. 6. Analytical approach In both samples in this study, supervisors coworker relationship con? ict responses were used as predictors of subordinate outcomes (i. . , cross-level main effect). Thus, a single supervi sor coworker relationship con? ict rating was used as the predictor variable for multiple subordinates. As a result, for these variables there was no within-supervisor variance and all of the variance was between supervisors (i. e. , ICCs were 1. 00). Additionally, supervisors provided ratings on certain scales (e. g. , work effort and OCB) for multiple subordinates, thus resulting in a supervisor effect (e. g. , ICC1s for OCB of . 11 in sample 1 and . 13 and sample 2, and ICC2s of . 48 in sample 1 and . 51 in sample 2).To study for the supervisor-level effect in our data, hierarchical elongate modeling (HLM Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2004) with grand-mean centering was used to carry out our analyses. In the HLM analyses involving supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, this variable was included as a take 2 variable (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong & Congdon, 2004). To test Hypotheses 12, there were four steps. In the ? rst step, we entered the four control variables . In the second step we entered the Level 2 variable of supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, and it was here that we tested Hypothesis 1.In the third step, we entered the Level 1 moderator variable, LMX. In the fourth step, we entered the cross-level interaction term formed between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and LMX. It was in this step that we tested Hypothesis 2. To test the abusive supervision-outcome and mediation hypotheses (3 and 4), we conducted Baron and Kennys (1986) threestep procedure. The HLM equations are available from the ? rst author request. 4. Results The means, modular deviations, and correlation matrix for the variables in this study are provided in hold over 1 for Sample 1 and Table 2 for Sample 2.In both samples abusive supervision was signi? cantly correlated with supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict, as well as our dependent variables. Given that a few of the correlations between our focal variables were hi gh, we take to run a series of con? rmatory factor analyses (CFA) on the scales used in our study to ensure that they were independent and that the items produced the expected factor structures. These analyses were run on both samples separately. To conduct our CFAs, we used LISREL 8. 80, a covariance matrix as input, and a maximum-likelihood estimation.We elected to conduct our CFA analyses using composite indicators rather than items due to the large scrap of items and our moderate sample sizes. To create our composite indicators, we assigned items based on factor loadings from an exploratory factor analysis (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994 Eddleston, Viega, & Powell, 2006). Speci? cally, for our four-item scales we combined the two items with the highest and lowest factor loadings to the ? rst indicator and the remaining two items to the second indicator. For the ? ve-item scales we created the ? st indicator as described above and included the remaining three items on the second in dicator. For our six-item scale we mated the highest and lowest loading item to create the ? rst indicator and then repeated this process for the remaining two indicators. Finally, for the LMX scale we used the four subscales (loyalty, contribution, professional respect, and affect) as composite indicators. Our approach resulted in 15 indicators for our 6 scales. 1016 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 Table 1 smasheds, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables in Sample 1.Variable 1. Abusive supervision 2. Sup. coworker con? ict 3. Leadermember exchange (LMX) 4. Work effort 5. OCB 6. LMX affect 7. LMX contribution 8. LMX loyalty 9. LMX professional respect 10. Age 11. Job tenure 12. Organizational tenure 13. Relationship tenure Mean 1. 31 3. 03 3. 92 4. 03 3. 87 3. 86 4. 10 3. 69 4. 03 41. 68 3. 38 5. 22 1. 99 SD . 57 1. 02 . 77 . 79 . 72 . 97 . 68 . 84 1. 09 11. 1 3. 88 5. 23 2. 02 1 . 77 . 21? ? . 67 ? . 27 ? . 29 .60 .36 .69 .62 .10 . 10 . 05 . 25 2 . 95 ? .11 ? .20? ? . 18? ? . 05 . 04 . 19? ? . 14 . 01 . 23? .01 . 17 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .76 . 3 .35 .91 .77 .83 .90 ? . 00 . 05 . 08 ? .00 .86 . 40 .28 .22? .35 .28 .03 ? .00 . 10 . 00 .65 . 27 .22? .33 .35 .01 ? .03 . 05 . 12 .92 . 62 .68 .79 ? . 02 . 11 . 11 . 04 .75 . 56 .58 .11 . 05 . 11 . 04 .74 . 64 ? . 04 ? .01 . 05 ? .11 .94 ? .03 . 02 . 01 . 02 . 35 .39 .26 . 69 .48 . 49 Note value in italics on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance explained which moldiness be larger than all zero-order correlations in the row and tower in which they appear to demonstrate discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).N = 121. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. We began by estimating a six-factor solution, with each factor representing a scale in our study. Fit indices, shown in Table 3, indicate that the six-factor model ? t the data. To verify that the six-factor structure was the outdo representation of our data, we estimated three alternative models and compared them to our baseline model via chi-square difference tests. The alternative models estimated included two ? ve-factor models and a unidimensional model. The alternative models were created by combining scales that had strong correlations to form a larger factor.The ? rst alternative model combined abusive supervision and LMX into one factor while the second combined OCB and work effort. A description of each alternative model and the CFA results are offered in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the chi-square difference test results support the six-factor structure as originally designed. To further explore the discriminant validity of our scales we followed the procedure outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981) and calculated the square root of the average variance explained for each of the scales in our study.This value, which we present on the diagonal in Tables 1 and 2, represents the variance accounted for by the items that compose the scale. To demonstrate discri minant validity, this value mustiness exceed the corresponding latent variable correlations in the same row and column. If this condition is met, then we have evidence that the variance shared between any two constructs is less than the average variance explained by the items that compose the scale (i. e. , discriminant validity). As shown in Tables 1 and 2, this condition is met for all of the scales used in our study.The HLM results predicting abusive supervision are shown in Tables 4 (for Sample 1) and 5 (for Sample 2) and the HLM results investigating abusive supervision as a mediator and/or predictor are provided in Tables 6 and 7. First describing our interaction results in Table 4, step 1 reveals that relationship tenure (? = . 08, p b . 05) was the only control variable signi? cantly associated with abusive supervision. footstep 2 shows that supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict are positively and signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 09, p b . 05).This result provides support for Hypothesis 1 in Sample 1. pure tone 3 in this analysis shows that LMX was negatively associated with abusive supervision (? = ?. 48, p b . 01). Finally, step 4 shows that the interaction term between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and LMX was negatively and signi? cantly related to abusive Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables in Sample 2. Variable 1. Abusive supervision 2. Sup. coworker con? ict 3. LMX12 (overall) 4. Work effort 5. OCB 6. LMX affect 7. LMX contribution 8. LMX loyalty 9.LMX professional respect 10. Age 11. Job tenure 12. Organizational tenure 13. Relationship tenure Mean 1. 32 2. 42 4. 04 4. 31 4. 31 4. 04 4. 15 3. 78 4. 19 45. 86 6. 55 11. 16 6. 08 SD . 58 . 76 . 60 . 73 . 67 . 78 . 56 . 78 . 95 6. 89 2. 66 4. 37 2. 12 1 . 92 . 15? ? . 55 ? . 26 ? . 21? ? . 53 .05 ? .52 ? . 57 .04 . 02 . 01 ? .01 2 . 94 ? .04 ? .03 ? .19? ? . 03 ? .06 ? .02 ? .02 ? .15 ? .09 ? .07 . 00 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .92 . 09 . 05 . 84 .53 .83 .86 ? . 07 . 08 . 05 . 07 .87 . 72 ? . 01 ? .03 . 18? .11 ? .03 ? .00 . 03 ? .02 .85 . 01 ? .13 . 09 . 13 ? .13 . 1 ? .05 . 07 .88 . 28 .56 .69 ? . 10 . 05 ? .03 . 00 .71 . 38 .22? .08 . 16* . 18? .15 .84 . 59 ? . 08 . 03 . 03 . 01 .95 ? .06 . 04 . 01 . 08 . 14 . 23 .18? . 61 .27 . 26 Note Values in italics on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance explained which must be larger than all zero-order correlations in the row and column in which they appear to demonstrate discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). N = 134. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 Table 3 substitute model test results.Model Sample 1 (N = 121) Baseline 6-factor model 5-factor combining abuse and LMX 5-factor combining work effort and OCB 1-factor Sample 2 (N = 134) Baseline 6-factor model 5-factor combining abuse and LMX 5-factor combining work effort and OCB 1-factor X2 102 196 127 706 df 75 80 80 90 X2diff dfdiff CFI . 98 . 95 . 97 . 59 NFI . 95 . 91 . 94 . 57 1017 RMSEA . 048 . 093 . 059 . 200 94 25 604 5 5 15 112 276 224 1177 75 80 80 90 164 112 1065 5 5 15 .98 . 93 . 93 . 47 .94 . 89 . 89 . 46 .056 . 125 . 107 . 280 Note Abuse = abusive supervision, LMX = leadermember exchange, OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. p b . 001. supervision (? = ?. 12, p b . 01). Overall, the results in Table 5 (Sample 2) are similar. In step 1 none of the control variables were signi? cantly associated with the outcome, but in step 2, supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict were positively and signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 11, p b . 05), again supporting Hypothesis 1. Step 3 in Table 5 shows that LMX was negatively associated with abusive supervision (? = ?. 54, p b . 01). In the ? nal step, the supervisor reported coworker relationship con? ict ? LMX interaction term was negatively and signi? antly related to abusive supervi sion (? = ? .29, p b . 05). To determine support for our interaction hypothesis, we graphed the two signi? cant moderating effects. We did so by plotting two slopes, one at one standard deviation below and one at one standard deviation above the mean (Stone & Hollenbeck, 1989). Figs. 2 (for Sample 1) and 3 (for Sample 2) illustrate the signi? cant interactions and show that the positive relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision were stronger when LMX relationship quality was lower.Additionally, we calculated open slopes for each of our interactions. In sample 1, we found that the slope of the low LMX line was signi? cant (t = 2. 00, p b . 05), whereas the slope of the high LMX line was not signi? cant. Similar to sample 1, in sample 2 the slope of the low LMX was signi? cant (t = 2. 11, p b . 05), but the slope of the high LMX line was not signi? cant. In total, these results provide support for Hypothesis 2 in both samples. Tables 6 and 7 provide the results of our mediation analyses. First discussing the results from Sample 1 shown in Table 6, supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ct was signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 09, p b . 05) (which ful? lls one of Baron and Kennys (1986) mediation requirements) and to OCB (? = ? .08, p b . 10) and work effort (? = ?. 14, p b . 05) (ful? lling another mediation requirement). Steps 2c and 3c show that when both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are entered into the equation, the coworker relationship con? ict variable is no longer signi? cant. In particular, the gammas for supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict predicting OCB dropped from ?. 08 to ?. 6 and for predicting work effort dropped from ?. 14 to ? .11. However, abusive supervision is signi? cantly and positively related to OCB (? = ?. 37, p b . 01) and signi? cantly and negatively related to work effort (? = ?. 27, p b . 05). Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported in Sample 1. In terms of the mediation results, the results from Baron and Kennys (1986) three-step procedure show that abusive supervision fully mediated the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and OCB and partially mediated the relationship with work effort. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported in Sample 1.Table 4 Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting abusive supervision in Sample 1. Step 1 Control variables Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Independent variable Sup-rated coworker con? ict (A) Moderator LMX (B) interaction term A? B ? R2 . 00 . 00 ? .01 . 08? Step 2 . 00 ? .00 ? .01 . 07 . 09? Step 3 . 00 . 00 ? .00 . 07? .05? ? . 48 Step 4 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 . 06? .05 ? .46 ? . 12 .02 .02 .02 .45 Note Sup-rated coworker con? ict = supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, LMX = leadermember exchange. N = 121. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. 018 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Qua rterly 22 (2011) 10101023 Table 5 Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting abusive supervision in Sample 2. Step 1 Control variables Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Independent variable Sup-rated coworker con? ict (A) Moderator LMX (B) Interaction term A? B ? R2 . 00 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 Step 2 . 01 .00 ? .00 ? .00 . 11? Step 3 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 . 00 . 09? ? . 54 Step 4 . 00 . 00 ? .00 . 00 . 13? ? . 55 ? . 29 .05 .01 .01 .35 Note Sup-rated coworker con? ict = supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ct, LMX = leadermember exchange. N = 134. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. Next we turn to the HLM results presented for Sample 2 in Table 7. This table shows that supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict was signi? cantly related to abusive supervision in step 1b (which passes Baron and Kennys (1986) ? rst step) and OCB (in step 2b), but not work effort (in step 3b). These results pass the ? rst two steps for mediation for OCB, but not work effort. Table 7 also reveals that abusive supervision is negatively and signi? cantly related to OCB (? = ?. 26, p b . 05) in step 2c, and signi? antly and negatively related to work effort (? = ?. 39, p b . 01) in step 3c. Thus, Hypothesis 3, which was supported in Sample 1, is also supported in Sample 2. Step 2c shows that when both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are entered into the equation, the coworker relationship con? ict variable is no longer a signi? cant predictor of OCB. In terms of the mediation results, the results from Baron and Kennys (1986) three-step procedure show that abusive supervision mediated the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ct and OCB, but not work effort. Thus, Hypothesis 4, which was supported for both dependent variables in Sample 1, was only supported for OCB in Sample 2. 5. Discussion The purpose of this study was to further our knowledge of the predictors and outcomes of abusive supervi sion. We pursued this goal by examining supervisor reports of relationship con? ict with their coworkers as a predictor of subordinate-rated abusive supervision, and LMX quality as a situational variable in? uencing this relationship. Additionally, we examined the outcomes of supervisor-rated OCB nd work effort and found that abusive supervision fully mediated the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and OCB in both samples and the outcomes of work effort in one sample. Returning to our theoretical arguments, we found that displaced aggression and LMX theories provide useful lenses for discussing predictors and outcomes of abusive supervision. Coworker relationship con? ict at any level is a potent source of stress and frustration as it impedes the achievement of goals and the attainment of desired outcomes (e. g. , Thomas, 1976).Like past abusive supervision research (Tepper, Duffy, Henle & Lambert, 2006), our results suggest that some supervis ors will resort to abusive behaviors against their employees as a means of coping with these consequences. This study advances existing research by explicitly examining situations where subordinates are not the logical target of retaliation (i. e. , they are not the source of the con? ict). Because subordinates are an easy and accessible target, however, having less power and less of an ability to retaliate, they make relatively safe candidates for abuse from frustrated supervisors.Table 6 Hierarchical linear modeling mediation results in Sample 1. DV = abusive supervision Step 1a Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision Note OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. N = 121. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. .00 . 00 ? .01 . 08? Step 1b . 00 ? .00 ? .01 . 07 . 09? Step 2a . 00 ? .02 . 00 . 05 DV = OCB DV = work effort Step 2b . 00 ? .01 ? .00 . 05 ? .08+ Step 2c . 00 ? .01 ? .00 . 07 ? .06 ? .27? Step 3a ? . 00 ? .02 . 02 . 00 Step 2b ? .00 ? .01 . 02 . 01 ? .14? Step 3c . 0 ? .01 . 01 . 04 . 11 ? .37 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 Table 7 Hierarchical linear modeling mediation results in Sample 2. DV = abusive supervision Step 1a Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision Note OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. N = 134. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. .00 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 Step 1b . 01 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 . 11? Step 2a ? .01 ? .00 . 00 . 00 DV = OCB DV = work effort 1019 Step 2b ? .01 ? .00 . 00 . 00 ? .13? Step 2c ? .01 . 0 ? .00 . 00 ? .09 ? .26? Step 3a ? .00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 Step 3b ? .00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 ? .03 Step 3c . 00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 . 02 ? .39 Additionally, when supervisors experience coworker relationship con? ict, our results indicate that they are most likely to abuse subordinates with whom they have low quality LMX relationships. This ? nding appears to suppo rt our argument that supervisors will focus their abusive behaviors on those employees in low quality exchanges in order to shield their high quality relationships from the deleterious effects of abusive supervision.In this way, supervisors may reason that abusive behaviors allow them to vent frustration while minimizing the negative in? uence of this coping behavior on their most valued employees. Naturally, there are ? aws in this method of coping, most notably that the performance levels of abused employees will likely suffer, causing added strain and frustration for other employees and the supervisors themselves. Among supervisors who make the worryatic choice to cope through abuse, however, it appears that employees in low-quality relationships are the most likely targets.We also extended abusive supervision research with our ? ndings indicating that this variable is related to the outcomes of OCB and work effort. These ? ndings are noteworthy as they extend the nomological n etwork of outcomes related to abusive supervision, and because both outcomes were supervisor-rated, which helps to minimize common source bias concerns (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Additionally, in sample 1 we found that abusive supervision served as an intermediary mechanism explaining the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ct and both consequences examined, and that there was also mediation on the outcome of OCB in sample 2. These results are important as they begin to answer the questions related to how situational supervisor variables, such as coworker relationship con? ict, ultimately are translated into subordinate outcomes. Surprisingly, we did not ? nd support for the work effort mediation hypothesis in Sample 2. A post hoc explanation for these insigni? cant ? ndings may relate to the demographic composition of the samples. Sample 2 was different from Sample 1 for both subordinates and supervisors.It was primarily male, the average age was higher, and average job and organizational tenure were both more than double (except for supervisor job tenure) those in the ? rst sample. Although it is possible to deduce explanations as to how these differences might have in? uenced our results, such atheoretical logic would be overly speculative. Thus, as we suggest below, we encourage replicative research in additional samples that would allow for a more systematic assessment of these, or other, sample-speci? c characteristics. 5. 1. Contributions These ? dings make several contributions to the extant research on abusive supervision and LMX relationships. First, they build support for the notion of displaced abusive supervision and undermine a potential alternative explanation. In Teppers (2007) review of abusive supervision literature, he concluded that supervisors perceptions of organization-level factors, such as Fig. 2. Moderating effect of LMX on the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relat ionship con? ict and abusive supervision in Sample 1. 1020 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023Fig. 3. Moderating effect of LMX on the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision in Sample 2. injustice and contract violation, can trigger abuse toward individual targets (i. e. , subordinates). He argued that this phenomenon might be explained by displaced aggression logic, in that subordinates serve as safe abuse targets even if the abuse is unlikely to resolve the perceptions triggering the desire to be abusive. An alternative, although somewhat tenuous, explanation is that these negative perceptions in? ence animosity toward the overall organization and that supervisors justify the abuse of subordinates who are seen as complicit in the perceived negative aspects of the organization. Our ? ndings suggest that this alternative basis of justi? cation would not adequately explain displaced abusive supervision . Looking beyond generalized organizational perceptions, we found that even frustration stemming from speci? c, identi? able non-subordinate sources (i. e. , supervisors coworkers) might translate into abuse toward subordinates.This suggests that abusive supervision may serve as a self-defeating coping mechanism (e. g. , Baumeister & Scher, 1988), akin to mechanisms such as difficulty drinking and procrastination, in that it seeks short-term stress-reduction (e. g. , through emotional venting) in a harmful way that does not address the true source of the underlying problem (e. g. , con? ict with peers). We also expand on Teppers conclusion, again stemming from his 2007 review of abusive supervision research, that subordinate characteristics in? uence the likelihood that they will experience abuse.As in the present study, Tepper (2007) cited victimization research to argue that subordinates who appear overly provocative or passive put themselves at a heightened risk for abuse. Expan ding on the latter idea, we argued and spy that employees in low quality LMX relationships, who we expect demonstrate relatively high levels of passivity and vulnerability, report higher levels of abuse. This suggests that instead of identifying each of the potential subordinate characteristics that can incite abuse, a more parsimonious approach might be to look at broad relationship variables such as LMX that can be viewed as re? cting the aggregate impact of these individual characteristics. This conclusion also adds to LMX research by revealing an additional consequence of low-quality LMX relationships. In addition to the wide body of research showing that low-quality LMX subordinates experience outcomes such as fewer rewards, lower resource levels, and reduced job satisfaction (e. g. , Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne, 1997), this study suggests a more serious potential consequence in the form of victimization by abusive supervisors.Additionally, our results, and the fact that most were replicated across the two samples, demonstrate the utility of multi-level models for predicting employee consequences of abusive supervision. Abusive supervision is an inherently multi-level phenomenon and this study shows that insights into some causes of abuse, such as con? ict levels between supervisors, exist that cannot be assessed from subordinate self-reports. Similarly, it identi? es supervisor-rated subordinate outcomes of abusive supervision (effort levels and OCB) that are dif? cult to assess with self-reports due to social desirability and common source bias concerns.Further, these supervisor-rated effects provide some indication that abusive supervisors are at least indirectly aware of the selfdefeating consequences of abuse. Our data do not tell us whether supervisors consciously related their abuse to lower levels of employee effort and citizenship behavior. Their awareness of lower levels among the abused subordinates, however, suggests that a degree of denial would be needed for the supervisors to overlook these causeeffect relationships. Although existing research has not, to our knowledge, explicitly verbalize that supervisors are unaware of the consequences of abusive behavior, this ? ding suggests that in store(predicate) research on preventing abuse might bene? t from focusing not on why supervisors view the behavior as acceptable, but why they engage in it despite an apparent awareness of these consequences. 5. 2. Limitations In addition to the aforementioned strengths and contributions, there are limitations that we must acknowledge to properly interpret the studys results. First we acknowledge that the theoretical framework we have developed is not the only logical explanation for the hypothesized and observed relationships.For example, it is glib that the link between supervisors coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision is less cognitive than we have argued. Instead of selectively choosing subordinates as a low-risk target for venting frustration, it might be that some supervisors simply possess traits that predispose K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 1021 them toward con? ict and abusive behaviors (with higher levels of abuse directed at low quality members). Examples of such traits might include negative affectivity or hostile attribution styles (Douglas & Martinko, 2001).An investigation of these possibilities would be useful in forming a more comprehensive understanding of the empirical relationships observed in the present study. In terms of methodological limitations, survey length constraints required us to use a reduced version of the abusive supervision scale. Even though we chose items that tapped into the full set of behaviors and found an extremely high correlation between our shortened measure and the full scale, this may still be viewed as a limitation. other limitation is that we were unable to measure causality.Thus, there is the potential that our relationships actually have turnaround time causality or that variables predict each other in a recursive manner. This is particularly true regarding the association between LMX perceptions and abusive supervision. Our results suggest that supervisors are more abusive toward some employees than others and that this difference is associated with variations in subordinates LMX scores. It can be argued, and is indeed very likely, that an abused employee would report lower LMX scores because of the abuse.The ? nding that supervisors are selective in their abuse targets suggests that some criterion is evaluated before targets are chosen and we have argued that preexisting LMX relationship qualities could serve as this criterion. Our design does not allow us to make this claim de? nitively, however. Similarly, it may be that abusive supervision is not the predictor of work effort, but that insuf? cient effort by subordinates promotes higher levels of abusive supervision or that both variables in? uence each other in a cyclical manner.We are particularly sensitive to the argument that there may be a feedback loop between abusive supervision and the outcome variables, such that abuse reduces subordinates effort and citizenship levels, and this reduction provokes further abuse, although the design of the study did not allow us to test this possibility. Along a similar line, it could be that abusive supervision toward subordinates is actually the cause of the supervisors con? ict among peers. We hope that future studies will be designed to better answer these causality questions.There are also limitations associated with the sampling of public, white-collar organizations. Different organizations (e. g. , private, military, blue-collar) have different rules and norms governing behavior and it is likely that the abusive supervisory behaviors studied would be more or less permissible, and therefore more or less common, in different organizational settings. 5. 3. Direc tions for future research This studys ? ndings suggest a number of directions for future research. First, we hope future researchers will examine our hypotheses in other, more diverse samples.Although we examined two separate organizations, it is necessary to examine additional samples to better establish the generalizability or boundary conditions of our relationships. A second suggestion is to examine the relationships in this study with a longitudinal research design. The extant research on abusive supervision, including this study, has primarily relied on cross-sectional designs. Although telling, these studies leave out situations and behaviors that impact subordinates over time. In the case of both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ct and abusive supervision, it may be that supervisors and subordinates learn to cope with these situations, and become accustomed to them. Conversely, it could be that these situations and behaviors become worse as they store over t ime (Harris, Kacmar, & Witt, 2005) as argued by Tepper (2000) and as noted in our discussion of cyclical relationships between abuse and behavioral outcomes in the previous section. Another avenue for future research is to conduct additional multi-level investigations to determine how supervisor experiences and situations impact their subordinates.In this study we examined supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict, but it also would be interesting to investigate the effect of supervisors supervisor relationship con? ict, abusive supervision, LMX, team member exchange, and perceived organizational support (Erdogan & Enders, 2007 Tangirala, Green, & Ramanujam, 2007) as these variables are likely to have trickle-down effects on employee outcomes. Additionally, the aforementioned implication that supervisors might be aware of the consequences of abusive supervision suggests that a multilevel, or at least supervisor-level, focus on understanding the justi? ation process might provide insight into interventions for preventing such behavior. It would also be interesting to investigate personality characteristics, such as Machiavellianism, entitlement, and narcissism, of supervisors and subordinates and how these variables are related to abuse (Harvey & Harris, 2010 Kiazad, Restubog, Zagenczyk, Kiewitz, & Tang, 2010). Finally, we examined LMX from the perspective of the member, but it would be insightful to investigate leader reports of the LMX quality with their subordinates and how this rating interacts with supervisor coworker con? ict. 5. 4. Practical implications Before discussing speci? practicable implications from this study, it should be noted that the overarching implication from this and most of the existing body of research on abusive supervision is that abusive supervision is detrimental to all parties. It is trying for victims and hurts organizational performance and a supervisors effectiveness by negatively affecting desirable outcomes (see Tepper, 2007) such as increased levels of effort and OCB. Employees may feel affright and afraid to report the behavior of abusive supervisors, however, making it dif? cult for organizational leaders to identify and eliminate these abusive managers.Because of the dif? culty in reducing existing levels of abuse, handicap techniques for reducing the likelihood of abusive supervision are advisable. The results of this study suggest that one such technique is for organizational leaders to observe and mediate con? icts between supervisory employees, thereby removing an antecedent of abusive behaviors. Additionally, because the supervisors in our study were more likely to abuse employees with whom they shared low-quality relationships, an organization-wide focus on the development of strong leadermember relationships might foster a climate where there are few 022 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 desirable targets for abuse. We acknowledge that neither o f these suggestions (i. e. , mediating supervisor con? icts and promoting strong leadermember relationships) are simple tasks. We suggest, however, that a continuous focus on these goals would consume far less time and energy than dealing with the consequences of abusive supervision. 6

Cell Phone Design Operation Management

Shortening the duration of the disgorge As the duration of the project is directly qualified on the duration of full of life manner, we should make the critical path shorter in this case we need to re-plan the project. Manager should shorten the duration or work on a task on the critical path, this can have a significant impact on the overall duration of the project, or they should change a task constraint to allow for more scheduling flexibility.We have a number of options and we should assess the impact of severally on the projects cost, flavor and time required to complete it. For example, we should increase resource available for each project activity to bring down time spent on each but the impact of some of this would be insignificant and a more efficient way of doing this would be to look only at activities on the critical path. Adding more resources to a project to shorten its duration is called crashing. We should do the crash action to shorten the critical path but In some situations.Shortening the original critical path of a project can lead to a different series of activities becoming the critical path, so the management should be sensitive of this. As our information is limited in this case we cant analysis the cost of putting more resources on some activities to speed it up by analyzing the original cost, crash cost we can estimate the crash cost per week we can compute the crash result and have plenty information for cost analysis and make decision. We can use the pert analysis and crash action to shorten the projects duration by shortening the factors of critical path.Some possible ideas for shortening the duration of subproject of the critical path are completing the software supplier specification in 4 weeks quite than 6 weeks, this would shorten the project by two weeks by putting additional input on this section but it will raise the project cost, the other one is D7, if we put more resources on this project and finish it in 2 wee ks as it is a constraint for D1 and both of them are in critical path it will reduce the duration of project significantly, by combination of these two we will reduce the duration by 4 weeks, from 36 weeks to 32 weeks, but as it was mentioned before the cost analysis is still important in making decision.The other change that I recommend is they should choke a critical task into smaller tasks that can be worked on simultaneously by different resources, for example the functionality can be divided in to two tasks which one of them is relevant to camera and the other one relevant to user interface, in this case not only the duration of the task will change but the constraints of this task will also l change relatively so this also will reduce the duration of the project. In world-wide they should revise task dependencies to allow more scheduling flexibility, and for additional resources they can schedule overtime to assign additional resources to work on critical path tasks, because by bringing new staff in the project the alignment and interrelationship between teams will be another problem that should be solved. By Microsoft project management we can have more detail analysis of cost such as crash, perk analysis, milestones and the overall of project running, attached are the same analysis from MS project.

Care for our environment

Care for our environment Albert Einstein once said Look deep into the nature and you get out understand everything better. Save your environment because it is a place where you live and do whatever you want to. I get a lot of questions these days around going reverse lightning. The most common of those questions is Why should I Care for the environment? The problem is this hasnt been raised by people who love recycling an organic nutrient but from people who think recycling and buying organic food is Just futile and an utter waste of time. Let me explain some honest reasons to save our environment. Firstly ow the world your good side. The impact we have on the environment today will make a big difference on the future generation. Your attitude towards the environment shows your personality. I f you are a person who doesnt care for the environment, it shows that you are an irresponsible person. Secondly nobody likes to live in an atmosphere filled with smog. It becomes hard to breathe and it causes a number of health problems which ultimately leads to death. Thirdly beautiful parks and beaches are scintillating to the mind and body. unluckily these have been destroyed by the mankind itself.As a result these gifts of nature are becoming more of a past memory and less of a reality. Last but not the least, human race isnt going to die out anytime soon. But we are using up our resources faster than we can replenish them. If we continue at the same place, we are eventually going to run out of fossil fuels, trees, drinking water etc. So remember, a green world is a better world. So let us Join hands and strive towards building a greener and better place to live in and lets make the future generation proud of what we did for them.

Male and Female Roles

Male and fe staminate roles pack changed dramatically since the beginning of the 21st century. Men were known as the bread-winners. Their responsibility was to go to work and figure out home money to take care of their family. While women stayed at home and took care of all the cooking and cleaning. The female role also consisted of bearing and taking care of all the children. Things have changed women can also get good jobs and bring home as much money as men and some judgment of convictions even more money than men. In a major step forward, women demanded and were granted the right to vote in the United States in 1920s.Women should not have to stay at home and take care of the children, cook, and clean. Taking care of children alone should be considered a full time job, before adding cooking and cleaning. In the 1960s the invention of the birth control pill came about that let women control when they had kids. Contraceptives made planning a family around a career easier for wome n careers no longer had to take a backseat to family. The great depression was hard on many families. Many men suffered losses of income and unemployment.Women embraced this abrupt status change and arise to the challenge of finding work to support their family. Then the equal opportunities movement came about meaning that employers could not discriminate against women in hiring and promotion, and providing further protection for women in the workplace, even though men still make more money than women. Along with being the principal(a) breadwinners a males role whitethorn consist of a few manly chores such as taking out trash, fixing cars, and cutting grass but, some males have taken on the female role. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than one percent of dads were stay-at-home fathers in 2006. Men account for only 19 percent of hit parents who live with their children. However, that still means there were 159,000 stay-at-home fathers as of 2006, according t o the U. S. Census Bureau. There is a thriving community of stay-at-home fathers who are kind of proud of their role in the family and support their bread-winning wives fully. Most women, who work full time with families, still have the primary responsibility of taking care of the children and home.Women indigence to get out and have a life, not just stay at home and do chores. Women also trust to take care of their children. Mothers want to be the one that see their babys first crawl or first word. Mothers want to get that child up in the morning, limit her and see her off to her first day of school. Mothers tend to be more nurturing than fathers. For example when a child fall off her bike for the first time a mother will probably run to that child and put a bandage on. Whereas a father will most likely hand over to brush it off and get the child to try again.I totally agree that males should be the primary bread- winners. Then if a woman wants to work detonate time or go bac k to school she can. Sometimes taking care of the children and chores can be split in half between male and female, so no one feel that one is doing more work than the other. If a woman wants to get out the house sometime and have a life maybe she could join a social club, have a few girlfriends, or volunteer with different community organizations. I do not think a woman should have to be the primary bread- winner, the primary caregiver to the children, and still do most of the cooking and cleaning.Some women have to be the primary breed winners. If a woman is left field alone to take care of her children she have no choice but to become the primary bread-winner, the primary care giver, and do most of the cooking and cleaning because maybe she will not have any help. Even though a female is left alone all the work of taking care of children and a home still goes on. In 2005, nearly 4 in 10 babies in the U. S. were natural outside of marriage according to the centers for disease con trol.References* Womens Roles Vs. Males Roles in the 21st Century eHow.com http//www.ehow.com/info_8630273_womens-males-roles-21st-century.htmlixzz2RIpkA17n

Rhetorical Analysis: Too Much of a Good Thing

Rhetorical Analysis Too Much of a Good Thing At least 25% of all Americans under age 19 are overweight or obese, a figure that has doubled over the last 30 years. says Greg Crister in his article titled Too Much of a Good Thing which appeared on July 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times. In his article, Crister uses three putting green rhetorical strategies, ethos, pathos, and logos, in an attempt to persuade his auditory sense, anyone raising children or interested in childrens health issues, of how prevalent this pestilent has become and provide them with some solutions as to how they can help preclude childhood fleshiness.Overall, Cristers argument succeeds and his audience walks away convinced(p) that childhood obesity is, in f chip, an epidemic that plagues children in their own country and that they must act immediately themselves to help fight the fight and insure that it does non become a problem with their own children. One common rhetorical strategy is ethos, which is the use of credible sources to support a claim.Since Crister is a writer and non an expert on childhood obesity himself, it is important that he uses credi duck sources to persuade the audience of the epidemic that childhood obesity is becoming. Crister uses ethos very well in his argument by providing current findings from reliable sources that are relevant to the immediate problem of childhood obesity. At the beginning of his article, Crister says, Obesity, the U. N. roclaims, is the dominant unmet global health issue, with Westernized countries top-hole the list. It is a common belief that the United Nations predominately only deals with epidemics that plague children in third world countries so by bringing to the audiences attention that the U. N. is now focalization on the United republics, Crister encourages them to look closer to home to collect what an immediate crisis that childhood obesity has become.By making the audience aware that childhood obesity is organism tr eated as an epidemic by a trustworthy and knowledgeable organization such as the United Nations, Crister succeeds in persuading his audience that this is a drab issue in their own country and they are more likely to want to do whatever they can to prevent childhood obesity since it could tint their own children rather than children on the other side of the world. The rhetorical strategy pathos means to appeal to the audiences emotions when making an argument and one way in which Crister uses pathos effectively is by his word choice.In his article, Crister says, Closer to home, at least 25% of all Americans under age nineteen are overweight or obese, a figure that has doubled over the last 30 years and a figure that moved the surgeon general to declare childhood obesity an epidemic. Knowing that, generally, parents only want the best for their children, Crister use of descriptive words, such as calling childhood obesity an epidemic, invokes a negative reaction in his audience and causes their protective, parental instincts to immediately kick in.Most parents could never fathom their own child might be part of an epidemic of any kind so by referring to the fact that childhood obesity is becoming an epidemic itself, Crister creates a sense of urgency in his audience that in turn makes them want to act on their protective instincts by helping to prevent the spread of this epidemic. In keeping with his strong use of word choice, Crister also uses the word gluttony double in his article and even elaborates by pointing out that gluttony is vilified as one of the seven deadly sins. Again, the use of such strong language causes the audience take notice of the severity of childhood obesity and makes them want to do whatever they can to prevent it so that their own children are not considered gluttons or part of an epidemic. Another rhetorical strategy is logos, which means using logic, common sense, and reason to appeal to an audience. In his article, Crister uses l ogic to provide some solutions to help prevent childhood obesity as well as discredited some long-standing myths on how these solutions might not work.One solution that Crister offers is when he points out the importance of instruction good eating habits early on so that overeating, one of the main causes of obesity, can be avoided. To help persuade the audience that this is an important step to take, Crister discredits the common misconception among parents that children will stop eating once they are full. Crister mentions a study led by Barbara Rolls, a nutritional scholar at Pennsylvania State University, in which she observed the eating habits of two groups of children.Rolls found that the three year old group would stop eating once they were full, regardless of how much intellectual nourishment they were given, but the five year old group would continue to eat, long after they were full, until everything on their plate was gone. This study helps persuade the audience that wh at they believed to be full-strength some the eating habits of children might not be true after all and that it is their job to help their children learn how to develop good eating habits at an early age.Crister goes on to point out that parents are led to believe that restricting a childs diet will cause them to, in turn, overeat. In an trend to explain this to his audience Crister says, The operative notion is that a child restrained from overeating will either rebel by secretly gorging when away from the table or, worse, will suffer such a loss of self-esteem that a lifetime of disastrous eating behavior will follow. Another solution that Crister offers is to mark off overeating. He says, Of course, no one should be stigmatized for being overweight.But stigmatizing the unhealthful behaviors that cause obesity would conform with what we know about effective health messages. This helps his audience see that stigmatizing overweight community might be detrimental but stigmatiz ing overeating itself might be one of the most logical solutions in preventing childhood obesity. Crister also notes that in the early 20th century France, when first faced with the excessive weight gain among children, they adopted the belief that meals should always be supervised by adults, food should be served in moderate proportions, and second helpings should be rare.The French are often stereotyped for being some of the most confident people in the world so Crister ends his article with the logical, yet tongue-in-cheek statement that, The French were taught in childhood not to overeat. And it didnt seem to do much harm to their self-esteem. This mention combined with his use of logos works well for Cristers argument because they make his audience realize that what they have been led to believe in the past about restricting a childs eating habits and how children approach eating in general might not, in fact, be true.By discrediting all of these myths, Cristers persuades his audience that they must take function in teaching their children good eating habits early on in their lives and they become more comfortable with the idea that stigmatizing overeating as well as restricting their own childs eating are other ways in which they can do their part in preventing childhood obesity.Overall, Cristers uses of ethos, pathos, and logos succeed in persuading his audience what an epidemic that childhood obesity has become and they walk with a couple of solutions to help them act immediately in helping to prevent this epidemic in their own children or children in this country. Works Cited Crister, Greg. Too Much of a Good Thing. Los Angeles Times 22 July 2001. 16 November 2012 .

Assessment in Special Education Essay

Abstract Some snips the general command program al atomic number 53 is not adapted to meet the postulate of a child with disabilities, and he/she whitethorn be able to receive circumscribed bringing up services. The evaluation process hindquarters be a very difficult task when try to identify if the child qualifies for supernumerary schooling, inculcates often have a pre-referral intervention process. The nigh prominent approached used today is the response-to-Intervention or RTI. Special knowledge teachers amaze c be many challenges when trying to meet the needs of exceptional needs bookmans in their classrooms.Methods of evaluation ar a big concern and challenge for educators of special needs pupils today. In addition, meeting everyones needs is a difficult task to accomplish because of students diverse abilities in the classroom. This research paper pull up stakes explore the distinct methods of judicial decision in special schooling programs and the best pra ctice sessions to wait on this children achieve their potential in an appropriate setting. interrogation and assessment is an ongoing process with children in special education programs.Some of these assessments include, emergenceal assessments, screening scrutinys, individual intelligence tests, individual academic achievement tests, adaptive behavior scales, behavior rating scales, curriculum-based assessments, end-of-grade, end-of-course, and flip out assessments. Comprehensive assessment of individual students requires the use of multiple data sources. These sources may likewise include govern tests, light measures, observations, student self-reports, parent reports, and progress observe data from response-to-intervention (RTI) approaches (NJCLD, 2005).The main purpose of a comprehensive assessment in the special education field is to accurately identify the strengths and needs of the students to help them be successful during their school years and there after. Legisla tion has played a big occasion in the shift towards functional assessment. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is also known as the Education for All Handicapped pip-squeakren Act has played a big role in this matter. The IDEA legislation needed to determine that students with disabilities receive free appropriate public education (FAPE) and the related services and support the need to achieve (Jeffords 1).IDEA was created to make sure that disabled children are receiving fair and equal education and support. This act has several parts to it which include providing grants, funds early intervention services, and supports research and professional development programs. The No Child Left Behind Act Impact on the Assessment of Special Education Student. After the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) move into our schools there is a great deal of controversy that questions whether the act implemented by President George W. Bush is helping or hurting an already pathetic school system.There are many dimensions of the NCLB act that have been questioned over the past decade the fair assessment of students with disabilities is one of them. As the National warmness for Fair & Open Testing (NCFOT) reported, the public relations aspect of this act is strong. Prior to the Individuals with Dis baron Education Act of 1997 (IDEA) students in special education were unbosom from participating in the statewide testing. However, the IDEA advocated that all students including those with special acquisition difficulties should be able to participate in testing. (Cahalan, 2003).Legislative Overview of Laws Protecting Special Education Students On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the NCLB act. In this act the federal government was for the first time in the history of the Department of Education position an act into effect that would penalize schools that failed to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP). The AYP is a measuring system in which the federal g overnment forget construction at the progress of the local government and school systems to decide whether or not that school, along with its teachers and students, has progressed and provided a high-quality education (Goldhaber, 2002).Through the NCLB act schools are held accountable for weakness test scores and failure to improve their class average from one year to the next. The longer the school fails to meet required scores, the more the school will be held accountable, and the greater the consequence. For instance, a school that is unable to make their desired AYP and has not improved a signifi kittyt amount within quin years will then be subject to reconstruction. This reconstruction could include the government completely taking over the school and hiring new teachers andteacher staff, sledding many teachers and staff unemployed (Goldhaber, 2002).Teachers and students in the special education department do have nigh laws however that helps them make testing less stress ful. The rehabilitation Act of 1973 required that registrations must be made for students with learning disabilities in order to be able to participate in the assessment (Cahalan, 2003). However, this leaves the question of what female genital organ be used as accommodations. Accommodations could include things such as test schedules and setting of the test, along with the format of the presentation.Also used to help the special education students and teachers is the individualized education plan (IEP). The Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act (IDEA) of 1991 would set into effect the idea of an IEP. An IEP is a plan that is set by a group of individuals that ready fast with the student to design the educational format that is most appropriate for him/her (Cahalan, 2003). This does not take into account the type of disorder the student has but scarcely the student themselves. The individualized attention that is given with this plan provides the student with the decli ne instruction needed to be successful in education.These groups of individuals include the teacher, parent, school psychologist and anyone else that is closely related to the education of this student. The IEP members are, in most states, responsible in deciding which accommodations are important for each individual student (Cahalan, 2003). They, however, are not a part of deciding what accommodations will be provided for each student during the NCLB assessment. The laws described here were all implemented with the same goal in mind to cheer special education students and be sure their quality of education is the same as all other students.However some of these laws, including the NCLB, must be modify in order to truly give special needs students the education and assessment they deserve. Best Practices in Assessment of Special Education Students Students in special education programs should be included in the statewide assessments, as the IDEA of 1997 states. The IDEA also state s that accommodations should be made to be sure that the student is able to full understand the materials they are asked (Cahalan, 2003).There are four categories of test accommodations, presentation, response, timing, andsetting (Cahalan, 2003). Presentation is simply visual aids that help the student fully understand the context. These do not alter the questions of the test they simply make it accessible for the students.Presentation accommodations include Braille, large-print, sign language interpreter, or reducing the add together of questions per page (Cahalan, 2003). These simple accommodations make test taking less stressful, and therefore the material is better understandable by the student. However, no state has reported utilise them in their statewide assessments since the inception of the NCLB.In a study of over one thousand students it was found that using a video presentation to help understand the test showed a significant increase in their achievement (Cahalan, 2003 ). So why is the educational department not using these modifications that help so much? Another form of accommodation used in special education testing is response. It may be as simple as adult an oral response instead of a written one or it may mean that the test is dictated to the student by a recorder. These accommodations in no way alters the response that is given or received, it is still the same question being asked.Results have shown that by providing a reader special education students showed a significant improvement in their test score (Cahalan, 2003). The last two accommodations are setting and timing. The timing could include any extra time needed, breaks during the exam, or spreading the testing out through a few days instead of taking it all in one day. And the final accommodation is setting, which could include special furniture, lighting, or an individualized testing area (Cahalan, 2003).Even though there was no evidence to prove that setting and timing are import ant accommodations, it is well known that many special education students are tested in private rooms with more time. These accommodations should be accessible for special education students that need them to better their test taking skills. However, many states do not allow such accommodations to be made due to the misconceived conception that they channel the contents of the test when in actuality they do not in any way alter the questions asked.BEST PRACTICES IN ASSESSMENT HANDOUT Create a shared mission and goals statement that reflects an emphasis on student learning. Focus on collaboration and teamwork. Faculty members must agree on assessment goals for plan to be meaningful. They may have to rise to a higher level of collaboration than may have been traditionally practiced in most departments. collaboration within the department, across departments, and with higher administration will facilitate the best outcomes from assessment cooking.All constituents must recognize that assessment skills must be developed and that colleagues can assist each other by sharing practices and strategies. Clarify the purpose of assessment. Assessment can serve dual purposes Assessment can shape up student learning or provide evidence for accountability requirements through an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses. Wherever possible, students should experience a direct, positive benefit from their participation in assessment activities. Identify slip away, measurable, and developmental student learning OUTCOMES.Explicit identification of learning expectations facilitates the departments coherence about their GOALS. Sharing those expectations explicitly with students can provide an effective learning scaffold on which students can build their experiences and render effective performance. Use multiple MEASURES and sources consistent with resources. Effective assessment planning can only occur when properly supported with appropriate time, money, and recognition for goo d work. The expansiveness of the assessment plan will depend on those resources.As resources permit, additional MEASURES can be added to planning. These MEASURES address variations in learning style, differences in types of learning, and interests from varied stakeholders. Implement continuous assessment with clear, manageable timelines. Better assessment practice involves spreading out assessment activity throughout the year and across years rather than turn outing a marathon short-term assessment effort in a single year. Projecting a schedule of regular formal reviews can facilitate appropriate interim activity. Help students succeed on assessment tasks.Students will fare best in assessment activities when faculty make expectations explicit, provide detailed instructions, and offer samples or models of successful performance. They will benefit most with opportunities to practice prior to assessment and when given detailed feedback about the quality of their performance. Interpret and use assessment results appropriately. Assessment should be a stimulus for growth, renewal, and improvement, not an action that generates data to ensure positive outcomes. Linking funding to assessment outcomes may encourage artificial results.Assessment data should not be used for personnel office decisions. If cross-institution comparisons are inevitable, care should be taken to ensure comparisons across comparable institutions (benchmarking). Evaluate your assessment practices. Results from assessment activity should be evaluated to address their reliability, validity, and utility. Poor student performance can reflect limited learning or an ill-designed assessment process. Examining how effectively the assessment strategy meets departmental needs is a critical meter in the evolution of the department plan.(Retrieved from www. caspercollege. edu/assessment/downloads/best_practices. pdf) The Effect of NCLB Assessments on Special Education Programs When the Department of Educa tion was asked how they intend to insure that special education students will not be forced to take tests that are above their intelligence level under the NCLB act, they could not give a real solution. They simply give tongue to that there are accommodations available, and if the students disability is severe to the point that the accommodations will not help, there are alternate tests they can take (Education Week, 2003).However, the riddle with this is that there is no clear definition as to who is able to receive these accommodations and who is able to receive the alternate assessment. Who decides this? And how handicapped must a student be in order to receive an alternate assessment? Even though special education students are not at the same intelligence level as their peers they are still placed in the same test group as them. The NCLB act does not include in its AYP percentage the failing percentage rate of special education students in each given nation.Therefore, teacher s and school administration are trying to make up for the percentage disadvantage in special education departments. Some teachers are now, for the first time, being held accountable for failing test scores. This, in effect, causes teachers to alter their curriculum and teach to the test? (Goldhaber, 2002). By teaching to the test students are missing out on important curriculum information that may be overlooked completely or presented in short educational lecture in the middle of teaching test taking skills and other information that may be found on the assessments. Possible Improvement to the Assessment and Accountability.To improve the NCLB act we must first know what is wrong with the act. While the idea of leaving no child stub in education is a good plan, there are still a few loop holes that the presidents act needs to clear up. The students that are placed in the special education setting are usually there because they have a disability or are under average in their cogni tive abilities. In order to be fair to these students the government must be sure that they have the same quality education as all other students, but the government must also realize that the curriculum of the material they are learning may in some cases be drastically different.With this knowledge, it must then be known that to accurately and fairly assess special education students the assessments must be built with the correct accommodations. In order for this to happen, those who design the tests must develop an exam that meets the needs of the student, and not the needs of the disorder. In other words, do not test a student as an autistic child but first look at their individual advantages and disadvantages according to each test taking skill.Some students may simply need more time, while others will need more time along with a person to read to them and interpret some large word usage. It is all based on the students individual needs (Cahalan, 2003). In other words the decis ions of the accommodations should be made by masses that know the student on a personal level, and know what accommodations are present in their current education setting. As stated before, with some assessments the IEP will meet to determine what accommodations will be made for the students in that assessment, However, this is not the case in the NCLB assessments but it should be.Those who are teaching and raising the child should be a part of the process of determining how the child is assessed and what accommodations are necessary (Washington, 2003). It is important for the education of future special education students that the Department of Education take into consideration the possible reforms that were suggested by many local government and teachers surrounding them. Improvements can be made to the assessment of special education, and should be made to be sure that all students are receiving a fair and adequate education.Disproportionate identification of minorities in some special education categories When speaking of the learning disabled, minorities, one must consider some dimensions to the issue of assessment within a particularly specialized light. This special population reflects both the learning disabled (LD) and the minority that they belong to. This is largely the case within a practical context, although as the literature points out, pre-considerations must be afforded for minority students. To begin with, it is important to look at the many variables that exist within the aforementioned components.These components include English as a Second speech (ESL), socioeconomic level and finally the impact this has on teaching the learning disabled in a classroom setting and more specifically when employing the assistance of a translator. Curriculum-based assessment is hampered with some biases that can preserve these students (Dolson, 1984). A childs race and ethnicity significantly influence the childs probability of being misidentified, miscla ssified, and inappropriately placed in special education programs. Research shows the relationship between race and ethnicity and other variables for students placement in special education classes.Variables such as language, poverty, assessment practices, systemic issues, and professional development opportunities for teachers have been cited as factors that play a role in disproportionate representation (emstac. org). Children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds should be able to receive an minute and appropriate education. Some students are not included in special education programs, even though they have a disability that is affecting their ability to learn and they need special education help.Some CLD populations are also significantly under-represented in programs for the gifted and/or talented. In these instances, CLD groups are considered under-represented because the proportion of students from certain ethnic or racial groups who receive special service s are significantly less than the number of these same students in the overall school population (U. S. Department of Education, 2004). Facts Hispanics are under-identified within certain disability categories compared to their White peers (U. S. Department of Education, 2006). Asian/Pacific Islander students are actually less likely to be identified for special education services than other CLD populations (NABE, 2002). There are a number of possible action steps school personnel can take to ensure that individual assessments are conducted in a culturally responsive and nondiscriminatory manner (Klotz & Canter 2006). Recommendations include Allowing more time. Assessments of students from diverse backgrounds require more time to gather important background information and allow for alternative and flexible procedures.Gathering extensive background information. To provide a context for the evaluation, conduct a review of all available background information including school attenda nce, family structure, household changes and moves, and medical, developmental, and educational histories. Utilizing student progress monitoring data from Response-to-Intervention (RtI) or problem-solving processes. selective information generated from a process that determines if the child responds to scientific evidence-based interventions should be included in a comprehensive evaluation.The National Research Council on Minority Representation in Special Education recommended the use of data from a systematic problem-solving process measuring the students response to high quality interventions (National Research Council, 2002, pp. 7-8). Addressing the role of language. Determining the need for and conducting dual language assessments are essential steps in an evaluation process. This includes determining the students language history (i. e. , ages that the student spoke and heard various languages), dominance (i. e. , greatest language proficiency), and preference (i. e. , the lan guage the student prefers to speak). Using nonverbal and alternative assessment strategies. When assessing students from CLD backgrounds, use standardized nonverbal cognitive and translated tests (when available in the target language). Additional assessment techniques, including curriculum-based assessments, test-teach-test strategies and in-direct sources of data, such as teacher and parent reports, portfolios, work samples, teacher/student checklists, informal interviews and observations, and classroom test scores are also helpful in completing an accurate, comprehensive evaluation (NEA, 2007). Bibliography Bush, President George W.(December 3, 2004). Bipartisan Special Education tame Bill. Retrieved from http//www. ed. gov/news/newsletters/extracredit/ 2004/12/1203. html Cahalan, C. & Morgan, D. L. (2003). Review of state policy for high stakes testing of students with disabilities on high school exit exams. Educational Testing Service. Department of Education. (2003). Title I ? Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged Proposed Rule. (34 CFR Part 200). Washington, DC U. S. Government Printing Office. Dolson, David P. (1985). The Effect of Spanish Home Language Use on the Scholastic Performance of Hispanic Pupils. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, V. 6, No. 2,50. Fair Test. (2005). The National Center for Fair & Open Testing. Retrieved from http//www. fairtest. org on October 12, 2011 Goldhaber, D. (2002). What might go wrong with the accountability measures of the? No Child Left Behind Act? The Urban Institute. IDEA Partnership.http//www. ideapartnership. org Klot z, M. B. & Canter, A. (2006). culturally Competent Assessment and Consultation. Retrieved October 2011 from http//www.naspcenter. org/principals/Culturally%20Competent%20Assessment%20and%20Consultation%20NASSP. pdf.Improving accountability for limited English proficient and special education students under the No Child Left Behind Act. (2003). Washington Area aim Study Council. National Association of School Psychology. (2007). The Truth in Labeling Disproportionality Special Education.Retrieved from www. nea. org/books on October 15, 2011. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2001a). Issues in learning disabilities Assessment and diagnosis. In Collective perspectives on issues affecting learning disabilities (2nd ed. , pp. 5561). Austin, TX Pro-Ed. (Original work published 1987) National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities.(2005). reactivity to intervention and learning disabilities. procurable from www. ldonline. org/njcld. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2007). The documentation disconnect for students with learning disabilities Improving access to postsecondary disability services. Available from www. ldonline. org/njcld National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems. (Fall 2005).Cultural considerations and challenges in response-to-intervention models. An NCCRESt position sta tement. Retrieved October 2011 From http//www. nccrest. org/PDFs/rti. pdf? v_document_name=Culturally%20Responsive%20RTI.No educator left behind Testing special education students. (2003). Retrieved October 15, 2011, from http//www. education-world. com/a_issues/NELB/NELB025. shtml Olson, L. (2004). Data show schools making progress on federal goals. Education Week, 24, 24-28.Retrieved from http//www. edweek. org Tomes, H. Ph. D. (2004). In public interest Are we really leaving no child behind? American Psychologist, 35, 31-35. Retrieved from www. apa. org on October 15, 2011 U. S. Department of Education. (2004). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC Author.