The Applications Of Arrow Debreu Model Economics Essay

The Applications Of Arrow Debreu Model Economics Essay According to Elroy Dimson and Massoud Mussavian (1999), Arrow-Debreu model was developed as a model of general equilibrium that has been fundamental to economics and finance. Compared to earlier models, the Arrow-Debreu model basically generalized the notion of a commodity, differentiating commodities by time and place of delivery. For example, apples in Malaysia in July and apples in Singapore in June are considered as different commodities. Kenneth J. Arrow (1951) and Gerard Debreu (1951) work together to produce the first rigorous proof of the existence of a market clearing equilibrium, given certain restrictive assumptions. This field of research has had a profound impact not only on economic science, but also on financial markets, institutions and businesses all over the world. It often used as a general reference for other microeconomic models. As Ramu Gopalan (2008) stated, the pioneering work of Arrow and Debreu has had an enduring effect on the study of financial aspects of the economy in a general equilibrium framework. One of their key contributions is to introduce time and uncertainty into general equilibrium models. The Arrow-Debreu model was established since 1950s, many researchers had extended this model to both economics and financial economics. Although this model is criticized by various eminent economists, the dedication of this model in the history is indestructible. In this assignment, we are going to discuss the applications of Arrow-Debreu model majoring in the financial economics. The purpose of this assignment is to find out and understand more about the contributions of this model to financial theory. The applications of Arrow-Debreu model will be listed out and discussed further. Journals will be shown and summarized out in order to support our discussion. Finally, the last section in this assignment is the conclusion. 2.0 Background studies In this assignment, the applications of Arrow-Debreu model in financial economics will be discussed. But before that we have to know what the Arrow-Debreu model is. 2.1 Arrow-Debreu Model Arrow-Debreu model, also referred as Arrow-Debreu-McKenzie model (ADM model), is the fundamental model used in the General (Economic) Equilibrium Theory. It is named after its originator who are Kenneth J. Arrow (b. 1921) and Gerard Debreu (1921-2004) on Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy as well as Lionel W. McKenzie (b. 1919). As what stated in the Farlex Financial Dictionary (2009), it says that this model is one of the most general models of competitive economy and is a crucial part of general equilibrium theory, as it can be used to prove the existence of general equilibrium (or Walrasian equilibrium) of an economy. Once we can prove the existence of such an equilibrium, it is possible to show that it is unique under certain conditions, but not in general. Furthermore, Arrow went on to extend the model to deal with the issues relating to uncertainty, stability of the equilibrium, and whether a competitive equilibrium is efficient. 2.2 Applications of Arrow-Debreu Model Arrow-Debreu model leads to a huge impact on economics and financial economics. First of all, it solves the long-standing problem of proving the existence of equilibrium in a Walrasian (competitive) system. This model analyzes the exact situations of those markets that are very competitive. In economics, Arrow-Debreu model suggests that a set of prices such as aggregate supplies will equal to aggregate demands for every commodity under certain assumptions made about the economic conditions (i.e. perfect competition and demand independence). Formulated in a purely mathematical form, the Arrow-Debreu model can be easily modified into spatial or intertemporal models with proper definition of the commodities based on the commoditys location or time of delivery. When commodities are specified to be conditional on various states of the world, the Arrow-Debreu model can easily combine expectation and uncertainty into the analysis. Besides, theoretical extensions and applications have been made to analyze financial and monetary markets and international trade, as well as other subjects. With a general equilibrium structure, the model is applicable in evaluating the overall impact on resource allocation of policy changes in areas such as taxation, tariff, and price control. Moreover, it applies to all general equilibrium models that are heavily dependent upon accurate mathematical proofs. In the field of financial economics, Arrow Debreu represents a certain kind of securities product which named as Arrow-Debreu security. This distinguished concept is a good teaching tool to understand the pricing and hedging issues in derivatives analysis. On the other hand, the Arrow-Debreu Model is also used in areas like financial engineering. But it has turned out to be very limited, especially in the multi-period or continuous markets. The model has been subject to the criticism that many of the assumptions it makes do not fit the workings of the real economy. However, the truth is that the Arrow-Debreu Model is very important for the derivative industry and helps the industry to grow at a rapid pace. 3.0 Literature Review In previous section, we have mentioned some applications of the Arrow-Debreu model both in the field of economics and financial economics. Now, the applications of this model majoring in financial economics will be discussed further. The functions of Arrow-Debreu model can be divided into six categories, asset pricing model, equity risk premium, corporate finance, Modigliani and Miller Theorem, Arrow-Debreu security and others. 3.1 Asset-pricing model From the studies, most of the Arrow-Debreu models applications are commonly used in shaping the asset-pricing model. Arrow-Debreu model was acted as an origin which gives the insight that consumption in different future states could simply view as different consumption goods according to Elroy and Massoud (1999). This result is proved and can be seen through various researchers journals. It is undeniable that the Arrow-Debreu model plays an important role in constructing the asset-pricing model. The evidences are given in following paragraphs. Based on the journal of Asset Pricing at Millennium written by John Y. Campbell (2000), he stated that theoretical and empirical developments in asset-pricing has taken place within a well establish paradigm for the last twenty years. While the well establish paradigm that he mentioned here is referred to the Arrow-Debreu model. Same as Franklin Allen (2001), he indicated that asset-pricing models are typically special cases of neoclassical Arrow-Debreu model. In the traditional Arrow-Debreu model of resource allocation, firms and households interact through markets and financial intermediaries play no role. On the other hand, the key element of the analysis in the modern version is the stochastic discount factor, which incorporates the Arrow-Debreu state prices and allows the assets to be priced. He also commented that this approach and the focus on the risk-return trade-off have allowed a rich interplay between the empirical and theoretical work. The equity premium puzzle is given as an example of special cases within the Arrow-Debreu framework in order to support his statement. Moreover, Elroy and Massoud (1999) narrated the historical development of asset pricing and derivative valuation on Three Centuries of Asst Pricing. He pointed out the success of conceptual framework that setting up the theory of asset pricing is down to Arrow (1953)s hard work. Dissatisfied with the current Arrow-Debreu framework, Arrow built up a series of contingent claims that follow the resolution of uncertainty to explain how one can achieve markets that are almost complete. Varian (1985) analyzed the impact of divergence of opinion on asset prices in an Arrow-Debreu economy. By considering the Arrow-Debreu model with agents who have different subjective probabilities, he compares and concludes the differences of opinion in an Arrow-Debreu contingent claim context. Based on his journal Divergence of Opinion in Complete Markets: A Note, three results were established. He concluded that in practice, increased dispersion of beliefs will generally be associated with the reduced asset prices in a given Arrow-Debreu equilibrium. Also, he uses this model to show that other things equal, if risk aversion does not decrease too rapidly, then assets with more dispersed opinion will have lower prices or vice versa. P. Bossaerts and C. Plott (2004) had done six financial markets experiments of testing two of the most basic propositions of modern asset pricing theory. The Arrow-Debreu model and the Sharpe-Lintner-Mossin Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), these two theoretical models are used to be the framework of their experiments. In the end of their experiments, they discovered a swift convergence towards equilibrium prices of Arrow-Debreu model or the CAPM. This discovery is significant because they use the subjects that lacked of information to intentionally set the asset prices. Sometimes, the equilibrium is not found to be robust which clearly shows a result of deviations of subjective beliefs from objective probabilities. However, they still find the evidences that prove this does not destroy the tendency for markets to equilibrate as predicted by the theory. 3.2 Equity Risk Premium Next, the Arrow-Debreu model is applied to explain the equity risk premium. In an attempt to explain the equity risk premium, Rajnish Mehra and Edward C. Prescott (1985) developed an Arrow-Debreu asset pricing model. They found that historically the average return on equity has far exceeded the average return on short-term debt and Treasury bills. Thus, they try to use the Arrow-Debreu model to interpret this situation. In the end of the journal The Equity Premium: A Puzzle, they concluded that only those equilibrium model with friction (i.e. non-Arrow-Debreu models) will be the one that successfully explain both high equity risk premium and low risk-free returns. However, Rietz (1988) overthrew the conclusion of Mehra and Prescott (1985) in The Equity Risk Premium: A Puzzle. He mentioned that the reason for them to reject the Arrow-Debreu model is their specifications which cannot explain the high equity risk premium and low risk free returns that characterize the U.S. economy. Hence, he re-specified their model to include a low-probability, depression from a high return of compensation for the extreme losses during the market crashes, captured those possible effects from the market crashes and finally successfully proved that these crashes allow it to explain both high equity risk premium and low risk free returns without abounding the Arrow-Debreu paradigm as well as not altering their models attractive features. In the journal The Equity Risk Premium: A Solution, he explained further that it does so with reasonable degrees of time preference and risk aversion provided the crashes are apparently severe and not too unimaginable. 3.3 Corporate Finance According to Jean Tirole (2006), he specified that a substantial and important body of empirical work has provided a clearer picture of patterns of corporate financing and governance, and of their impact for firm behaviour and macroeconomic activity. One of them is the Arrow-Debreu model. During 1970s, the dominant Arrow-Debreu model of frictionless markets (presumed perfectly competitive and complete, unhampered by taxes, transaction costs, as well as informational irregularity) can prove to be a powerful tool for analyzing the pricing of claims in financial markets, but little about the firms financial choices and about their governance. Besides, in the complete market paradigm of Arrow (1951) and Debreu (1951), the financial claims returns depend on some choices such as investments, are assumed to be contractible and therefore are not affected by moral hazard. In Jean (2006)s opinion, financial markets were not plagued by problems of asymmetric information because investors agree on the distribution of a claims returns. Viewed through the Arrow-Debreu lens, he identified that the key issues for financial economists are the allocation of risk among investors and the pricing of redundant claims by arbitrage. Michael J. Brennan (1995) also clarified that the abstract simplicity of the Arrow-Debreu model yields few insights for corporate finance beyond the value additivity principle that was used to refute the conventional wisdom that conglomerate mergers will add value to the company through the corporate diversification. 3.4 Modigliani and Miller Theorem (M-M Theorem) Another application of Arrow-Debreu model is related to M-M theorem which devised by Franco Modigliani and Merton Miller (1958). This theorem explains that a firms financial structure is irrelevant under certain conditions, Arrow-Debreu environment. The value of a financial claim or a firm which equal to the sum of the values of the claims it issues is thus equal to the value of the random return of this claim or the firm computed at the Arrow-Debreu prices (the prices of state-contingent securities). Therefore, Arrow-Debreu model is used as a fundamental of economy in formulating M-M theorem. 3.5 Arrow-Debreu Security (State Contingent Claim) Mostly, Arrow-Debreu security will be the answer of the applications of this model majoring in financial economics if we searching it through the internet. Based on the journal A re-examination of the Modigliani-Miller theorem written by Joseph E. Stiglitz (1969), in a section entitled Arrow-Debreu securities, he not only showed the M-M theorem in a complete markets setting but also mentioned about the Arrow-Debreu model under uncertainty in which individual can buy or sell the promises to pay if a given state of the world occurs. This shows a direct relationship between the Arrow-Debreu model and the Arrow-Debreu security. Through the calculation, he observed that if he takes literally the Arrow-Debreu definition of a state of nature, there is undoubtedly will be more states of nature than firms and most of these states are similar with each other. An example, variation in the return on stocks can be explained by the business cycle, is given to support his statement. Robert E. Lucas (1984) analyzed the unified theories of money and finance on Money in the Theory of Finance. He examined and commented that financial and monetary theory have different objective, however, the desirable theoretical unity may be, one can identify strong forces that will continue to pull apart these two bodies of theory. He mentioned that the theory of finance is conducted almost entirely within the Arrow-Debreu contingent claim framework such as the three pillars of modern financial theory which have been reformulated in contingent claim terms. Besides, he wrote that the applications of the Arrow-Debreu contingent claim formulation of a competitive equilibrium for an economy operating through time is subjected to stochastic shocks. In the end, he concluded that the power in applications of the contingent claim point of view is obviously evident in finance, will be as usefully applied to monetary theory. One more thing that he suggested is the source of this power which is the ability of this framework to permit the reduction of the study of asset demands to the study of demands for the more fundamental attributes to which assets are claims. 3.6 Others Apart from those above categories, Arrow-Debreu Models can be used for other purpose. For instance, it acts as a fundamental to explain the pattern of trade, to formulate the fixed price equilibrium or to find out whether the financial markets are arrangements for risk-sharing. Furthermore, it is extended further to analyze the restrictions and developed further that include a sequential market model with the financial markets. One of the section in the journal Differences of opinion in financial markets written by Hal R. Varian (1989), an Arrow-Debreu contingent consumption model of the sort studied by Milgrom and Stokey (1982) was examined. Through the mathematical calculation and the analysis of the consequences for assets market equilibrium based on the Arrow-Debreu model, it ends with a similar result, prices are determined by information, but the pattern of trade is determined by differences in opinion. In order to establish the important difference for trade is the opinion, he analyzed some of its consequences for assets market equilibrium. At last, he stressed that the volume of trade in an Arrow-Debreu model is due primarily to the differences of opinion. Next is the Claus Weddepohl (1983). He discussed and addressed the development of the theory of general equilibrium during the last twenty-five years. Considering and analyzing the Arrow-Debreu model with futures markets, he showed the result that this model gives rise to temporary equilibrium models. He stated that the fixed price equilibrium models are formulated through the study of these models and the study of the stability of price adjustments. The simple fixed price equilibrium model as defined by Barro and Grossman (1971) and Malinvaud (1977) is what he emphasized in the journal Developments in the Theory of General Equilibrium. Ouattara (1994) applied the Arrow-Debreu model to the small villages in the McCarthy Island Division South (MID-South) of The Gambia to find out whether financial markets are arrangements for risk-sharing. The main objective of risk-sharing is to verify that observed consumption patterns are consistent with patterns predicted by insurance models. The Arrow-Debreu full insurance model focuses on consumption smoothing across different states of nature at each particular point in time through state-contingent contracts. In the end of his research, the results supported the hypothesis that state-contingent loans are accepted in rural Gambia and there is full risk-sharing among participants in the financial markets. Peter H. Friesen (1979) extended the Arrow-Debreu model to financial markets which include the sequential market model. It is done by dropping the contingent contracts from the Arrow Debreu model, leaving only a sequence of spot markets for commodities. This leads to an inefficient market structure but efficient for sequence of stock markets and option markets. The purpose of the journal The Arrow-Debreu Model Extended to Financial Markets is to develop further the Arrow-Debreu model. The method that he used is through the extension of Arrow (an equilibrium in one model was constructed from that of another). For example, financial securities, Arrow certificates can be constructed from options on common stock and the advantage in the general equilibrium theory of financial markets, are the proofs of using Arrows method. On the other hand, the sequential market model for which equilibrium are constructed from the Arrow-Debreu equilibrium derived in Debreu (1951). From the fact that Arrow-Debreu equilibrium exist, it follows by construction that equilibrium for this model exists. It also follows that the equilibrium is efficient. Peter (1979) stressed that such models are used both to study financial markets and to explore the effects of a gradual resolution of uncertainty. Lastly, he concluded that it not only shows the close relationship between these two models but also reminds us that the potential value of finite-horizon Arrow-Debreu models for the study of sequential economies. Investors in financial markets face several restrictions apart from wealth constraints. So, we have the right to understand the restrictions in a general competitive equilibrium. Based on the journal Contributions to Intertemporal Models in Financial Economics written by Ramu Gopala (2008), the Arrow-Debreu model was extended further for the usage of analyzing those restrictions. He indicated that the traditional Arrow-Debreu model can be extended to a more realistic setting. Following Angeloni and Cornet (2006), this extension of the Arrow-Debreu model in the multi-period setting with restricted participation is established. Arrow-Debreu model was used to elaborate, to compare, to extend and to emerge for shaping those important finance theories. 4.0 Supporting Theories In this section, the theories that are related to Arrow-Debreu model will be further discussed. Apart from that, in order to let us have a more complete picture about this model, the theories that we displayed previously will also be stated and explained, as well as deliberated further. 4.1 General Equilibrium Theory General equilibrium theory is the core of economic theory. Before the Arrow-Debreu model is established, this theory has been proposed by L. Walras (1874). As reported by Arrow and Debreu (1954), he was the one who first formulated the state of economic system at any point of time as the solution of a system of simultaneous equations representing the demand for goods by consumers, the supply of goods by producers, and the equilibrium condition that supply equal demand on every market. In other words, Walras (1874) is the pioneer who first attempts to model the price for a whole economy. Walras uses mathematics to construct a complete structure of general equilibrium theory. This research has lead to results in contribution to neoclassical economics. However, the mathematics that he used to set up the foundation of this theory was unstable due to the existence of general equilibrium does not solved in a satisfactory manner. Hence, theoretically, if he cannot prove this existence, then this theoretical system will become meaningless. General equilibrium theory is therefore developed and improved by Vilfredo Pareto (1897), John R. Hicks (1939), John Von Neumann (1937), Paul A. Samuelson (1941), Kenneth J. Arrow (1954), Gerard Debreu (1954), Lionel W. McKenzie (1954) and others, which becomes an integral part of economics. 4.2 Fundamental Theorems of Welfare Economics Before the Arrow and Debreu began their famous collaboration, both of them had proved the same theorem which is the Fundamental Theorems of Welfare Economics or First and Second Welfare Theorems. There are two fundamental theorems of welfare economics. The first theorem states that every general equilibrium involves a Pareto efficient allocation of resources under the three assumptions. The three assumptions are if there are no externalities, all agents are price-taker, and prices for each good are known to each agent. While the Pareto efficient named after Vilfredo Pareto (1897), is a type of efficiency that results if one person cannot be made better off without making someone else worse off. The First Welfare Theorem is viewed by many economists as the formalization of Smiths Invisible Hand. As Makowski and Ostroy (1995) stated, it provided a set of sufficient conditions for a price system to efficiently coordinate the economic activity. Besides, this theorem supports the case for non-intervention in ideal conditions. For instance, the outcome is said to be Pareto efficient if we let the markets to do the work. The Second Welfare Theorem says that if preferences are well-behaved (especially convex) then every Pareto efficient allocation can be supported by a general equilibrium set of prices, given a suitable reallocation of the endowment. Referring to Varian (1985), this theorem effectively said that if you think an equilibrium is unfair, just move the endowment of the economy and a different general equilibrium will be obtained. Due to the convexity, the second theorem is stronger than the first theorem. The difference between these two theorems is the second theorem requires existence of general equilibrium from all endowment points, whereas the first theorem required only that if a general equilibrium existed it was efficient. According to Michael A. S. Guth (1994), Arrow (1951) provided a rigorous proof of the connection between competitive equilibrium and Pareto optimal. Gerard Debreu (1951) introduced convex analysis methods into welfare theory and independently proved the same theorems. As a result, these theorems have an important relation to Arrow-Debreu model; the existence of solutions to a competitive equilibrium is finally solved. 4. 3 Theories in relation to the Restriction of General Competitive Equilibrium Previously, the Arrow-Debreu model was used to analyze the restrictions. In order to understand those restrictions in the general competitive equilibrium framework, tracing back those following theories is necessary for us to know how the Arrow-Debreu model was used to be compared and proved other economic theory. 4.3.1 Radner Equilibrium Roy Radner said that the Arrow-Debreu model is not originally put forward for the case of uncertainty, but a powerful device introduced by Arrow (1953), and further elaborated by Debreu (1953), enabled the theory to be reinterpreted to cover the case of uncertainty about the availability of resources and about consumption and production possibilities. Hence, he extends the Arrow-Debreu equilibrium and forms an economic concept-Radner Equilibrium. Radner (1972) is the first who considers the general equilibrium with incomplete markets. He shows that unlike the Arrow-Debreu models, the possibility of trading commodity futures for every contingency is sufficient to enable income transfers across all spots. In addition, the assumption that he made, short-sales of these contracts are limited for every agent, is a driving force in his proof of the existence of a general financial equilibrium. This can be seen as the first attempt to incorporate this idea in their asset market participation. 4.3.2 Concept of Constrained Pareto Optimality Radner Equilibrium, however, is imperfect. Oliver D. Hart (1975) uses some disturbing but perceptive counter-examples to display some of the weaknesses of Radners concept of equilibrium. He showed that existence of such an equilibrium cannot be proved under the standard Arrow-Debreu assumptions. He specified that when the asset returns are price dependent, the market sub-space may not be continuous in the spot prices which may lead to discontinuous demand functions. This reason causes a failure of the existence of Radner equilibrium. In other words, an equilibrium may not be Pareto efficient in the case of incomplete markets which shapes the concept of Constrained Pareto Optimality. 4.4 Limitations of Arrow-Debreu Model Although the Arrow-Debreu model has many influences on either economics or finance, however, there are the limitations. There are three limitations of Arrow-Debreu model. In this model, it excludes the trade in shares of firms because the stock certificate is not an Arrow-Debreu commodity. When the descriptions are so precise that further refinements cannot yield imaginable allocations which increase the satisfaction of the agents in the economy, then the commodities are called Arrow-Debreu commodity. Trading in shares of firms cannot be classified as Arrow-Debreu commodity due to its possession entitles the owner to additional commodity which he need not obtain through exchange. Bankruptcy is not allowed in Arrow-Debreu equilibrium. All agents must meet their budget constraints. In a game theoretic formulation of equilibrium, it is achieved by enforcing an infinite bankruptcy penalty. Since every Arrow-Debreu equilibrium is Pareto efficient, there would be no benefit in reducing the bankruptcy penalty to the point where someone might choose to go bankrupt. Money does not appear in this model. Although the reasons for the existence of money in real life are already taken care of in the Arrow-Debreu model, money does not affect the allocations of commodities. Therefore, there is no point in making the role of money explicit in the Arrow-Debreu model. 5.0 Conclusion In fact, Arrow-Debreu model is not simultaneously created by K.J. Arrow and Gerard Debreu. Debreu is the one who extends further the Arrows pure exchange model in several important ways. Their contribution in formulating Arrow-Debreu model has laid a foundation for economic theory. The application of Arrow-Debreu model emphasizes more on the general competitive equilibrium framework of the economics. From the studies, we notice that most of its application majoring in the financial economics is act as a fundamental theory or economy in shaping the asset pricing model. Other functions like analyzing the market structure, risk and etc, also show that the usefulness of this model. Besides, it is applicable in evaluating the impact of all uncertainties with a general equilibrium structure. The analyzers use a series of mathematical equation to prove their statements. The pioneering contributions of Arrow and Debreu have forever changed the way economic theorists formulate uncertainty models.   After more than forty years of analysis and extensions, their general equilibrium framework and approach continues to be the starting point for new theories on the operation of competitive markets under uncertainty. As a conclusion, it is undeniable that the Arrow-Debreu model had turn on a new leaf in the history of economics. It is the modern concept of general equilibrium in economics which indirectly set up several important theories. Nothing is perfect in this world. Of course, Arrow-Debreu model as well. Some assumptions have to be made. Criticism also may happen. However, those brilliant economists or researchers still can use this model to formulate their own theory and then ends up with a perfect ultimate theory in both economics and finance. Lastly, mistakes, problems, and weaknesses should be pointed out, corrected and improved so that Arrow-Debreu model can be applied and developed effectively.

Plagiarism in Higher Education Essay

Al Ain Women’s College, Higher Colleges of Technology, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of the modern information society on attitudes and approaches to the prevention of plagiarism and to examine a less punitive, more educative model. Design/methodology/approach – The approach taken is a literature review of plagiarism in contemporary society followed by a case study of the education department of a tertiary-level college in the United Arab Emirates. Findings – The authors advocate a move towards a less punitive, more educative approach which takes into account all the relevant contextual factors. A call is made for a truly institutional response to a shared concern, with comprehensive and appropriate policies and guidelines which focus on prevention, the development of student skills, and the proactive involvement of all relevant stakeholders. Practical implications – This approach could inform the policies and practices of institutions who wish to systematically deal with plagiarism in other contemporary contexts. Originality/value – This paper could be of value to policy makers and administrators in tertiary institutions, particularly in English as a second language contexts, who recognise the limitations of traditional approaches to plagiarism and wish to establish more effective practices. Keywords Copyright law, Information society, Dishonesty, United Arab Emirates Paper type Literature review Plagiarism in political discourse Politicians, more than anyone else, need to portray an image of integrity, honesty, and independent thought. Their election, their livelihood, and the fate of their constituents would seem to depend on it. Yet politicians commonly use speechwriters who have the speci? c task of conveying their thoughts, personality, and personal sincerity (see for example, Philp, 2009). It may be argued that although politicians do not necessarily write the words themselves, they endorse the words they use. But what if the words themselves are not original? In one instance, the presidential candidate Barack Obama was confronted by the fact that some of his speeches had taken material from Deval Patrick, the Massachusetts Governor. Obama admitted he should have acknowledged his source: Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues Vol. 3 No. 3, 2010 pp. 166-177 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1753-7983 DOI 10. 1108/17537981011070082 I was on the stump. [Deval] had suggested that we use these lines and I thought they were good lines [. . . ] I’m sure I should have – didn’t this time [. . . ] I really don’t think this is too big of a deal (Obama cited in Whitesides, 2008). Published by kind permission of HCT Press. Plagiarism has been de? ned as â€Å"the unacknowledged use of someone else’s work [. . . ] and passing it off as if it were one’s own† (Park, 2004, p.292) and it is interesting to speculate whether such an excuse would be accepted from a student by an educational institution’s plagiarism committee. Accusations of plagiarism in politics have been made before, of course, though the outcomes were often different, suggesting that a shift may be taking place in attitudes towards plagiarism in politics. In 1987, another presidential hopeful was forced to abandon his ambitions for high of? ce largely because he had plagiarised a speech by the British politician Neil Kinnock and because of â€Å"a serious plagiarism incident† in his law school years (Sabato, 1998). Ironically, the candidate was none other than Joe Biden, the man chosen by Obama to be his Vice President. In politics today, it seems as though plagiarism no longer signals the end of a career. In contrast, students who are caught cheating or plagiarising can be subject to sanctions and consequences that are severely life impacting, which in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) can include permanent exclusion from all tertiary education (see for example, Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT), 2008). One question of fundamental concern that we must ask ourselves as tertiary-level educators is why college students, who have much less at stake, considerably less experience and knowledge and who do not use English as their ? rst language, should be held to higher standards of responsibility in communication than those in the highest political of? ces? Yet, if we make allowances for students who are still learning to orientate themselves in academic discourse, what standards should be applied? Plagiarism in a complex information society The concept of plagiarism is a relatively new cultural phenomenon. Greek philosophers regularly appropriated material from earlier works without compunction, and originality was considered less important than imitating, often orally, the great works of their predecessors (Lackie and D’Angelo-Long, 2004, p. 37). All the way through the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the study of rhetoric rather than written language was often the norm, with students required to give public speeches to assembled faculty. Only the subsequent move towards written assignments brought with it new perceptions of student plagiarism (Simmons, 1999, p. 41). Around the same time, in the earlier part of the twentieth century, the formalization of citation styles from organizations such as the American Psychological Association marked a desire to standardise academic writing and provide a model for ethically quoting the work of others (Simmons, 1999, p. 42). With the rise of the information society and electronic media, another cultural shift seems to be underway. There have been recent suggestions that plagiarism is becoming more prevalent, and much of the blame has been placed on â€Å"nearly universal access to the Internet† (Scanlon and Neumann, 2002, p. 374). Park (2004, p. 293) refers to the ease of â€Å"copying [. . . ] in a digital world of computers, word processing, electronic sources and the Internet. † However, the explosion of electronic sources of information has not just made copying easier, it has also made it much more central to our students’ cultural and social experiences. Students going into tertiary education have grown up with the internet and are at home with downloading â€Å"free† ? lms, sharing music and modifying and emailing all kinds of material taken from the web. They have developed highly skilled ways of conducting non-academic research using  services such as search engines, social networking sites, podcasts, RSS feeds, discussion boards, etc. with Dealing with plagiarism 167 EBS 3,3 168 hyperlinks allowing them to jump from site to site as though the internet were a single-uni? ed source, and with copying and pasting a mainstay of interaction. They take it for granted that a pop star such as will. i. am can pick up and rework virtually the entire content of a political speech, and turn it into the award winning song and music video Yes we can, apparently without Obama’s knowledge or consent ((The) ABC News, 2008). They are not surprised when this video is then embedded in countless webpages, with the lyrics of the song posted on music sites without any attribution of the original source (see for example, LyricsReg, n. d). This intertextuality is a perfect example of the â€Å"postmodern, self-cannibalizing popular culture† (Bowman, 2004, p. 8) that our students now engage with on a daily basis. Students may well bring to the classroom very different ideas from their teachers about what constitutes fair use. Indeed, one study of 2,600 tertiary-level students in the UAE found that just over 40 percent considered cutting and pasting from the internet as either trivial cheating or not cheating at all. The attitudes of UAE students are similar to those of other students around the world (Croucher, 2009). Some theorists have gone a step further and argue that as the new media become more interactive and collaborative, it calls into question the whole idea of a â€Å"creative, original, individual who, as an autonomous scholar, presents his/her work to the public in his/her own name† (Scollon, 1995, p.1). The multiple contributors to Wikipedia pages is a clear example of how a collaborative process undermines our sense of authorship. In addition, the notion of what constitutes â€Å"fair use† is changing quickly. This is exempli? ed by the open source movement where material can be downloaded, modi? ed, and shared with minimal and strictly controlled author’s rights (See for example, Open Source Initiative, n. d). As Blum (2009) notes, the â€Å"rules about intellectual property are in ? ux. † Where does this leave educators? Has plagiarism become an irrelevant concept, too outdated in its de? nition to be of use in the production of educated professionals ready to take their place in our post-modern society? Do we have to accept Johnson’s (2007) argument that in the digital age, writing an original essay outside of class for assessment purposes is no longer viable in its current form because of the ease of copying from the internet? Do we have to agree with him when he says such tasks are no longer even relevant because they fail to re? ect the modern workplace? As Johnson argues: My transfer from education to the world of business has reminded me just how important it is to be able to synthesize content from multiple sources, put structure around it and edit it into a coherent, single-voiced whole. Students who are able to create convincing amalgamations have gained a valuable business skill. Unfortunately, most schools fail to recognize that any skills have been used at all, and an entire paper can be discarded because of a few lines repeated from another source without quotation marks. Plagiarism in education Plagiarism in education seems to operate under a very different set of rules from the pragmatic ? elds of politics or business and can create emotional responses that deploy highly charged metaphors such as The Plagiarism Plague (Bowman, 2004) or â€Å"Winning hearts and minds in war on plagiarism† (Jaschik, 2008). In education, plagiarism is â€Å"seen as a transgression against our common intellectual values, carrying justi? ably bad consequences for those guilty of the practice† (Isserman, 2003). Why is it generally accepted that politicians can use ghostwriters, but that students cannot, even if the stakes for the students are much lower? The critical issue for education is that plagiarism â€Å"circumvents the learning process† (Spencer, 2004, p. 16). The process of analysing and synthesizing ideas, and reformulating them in writing, is seen as central to learning. Only by ensuring that students struggle to assimilate material and develop their own voice do students go beyond surface information and develop higher order thinking skills. As Isserman (2003) notes: [.. . ] ownership over the words you use [. . . ] is really at the heart of the learning process. You can read a dozen books about the cold war, but if you can’t explain what you have learned to someone else in your own words, no real learning has taken place [. . . ] and you will have made no progress whatsoever toward realizing the central goal of a liberal-arts education: the ability to think for yourself. Dealing with plagiarism 169 This struggle for intellectual development is not easy, which is precisely the reason that makes plagiarism attractive for some students. In most cases teachers are not concerned about literary theft, but that their students are missing out on opportunities for learning because they are failing to engage with the material in a meaningful way. Plagiarism is therefore â€Å"denying them the opportunity to learn lessons, improve their study skills, and improve their knowledge and understanding† (Lancaster University, 2009, p. 3). If plagiarism is especially serious in education because it is an obstacle to learning, then we should deal with instances of plagiarism primarily from an educational perspective rather than the punitive one. Students need to learn the importance of academic integrity and understand that it is not just a hoop to be jumped through, but is integral to intellectual and personal growth. Clearly this learning process cannot be instantaneous, and allowances should be made as students develop. However, this does not mean that severe penalties should be removed from the process entirely as there will always be students who refuse or are unable to meet appropriate standards. Factors in? uencing the incidence of plagiarism Individual, pedagogical, and institutional factors can all in? uence the incidence of plagiarism. Students themselves can be impacted by a wide range of factors including their educational conditioning, cultural background, motivation, language skill, peer pressure, gender, issues with time management, ability, and even the subject being studied (Roig, 1997). If the tertiary experience is vastly different to students’ previous educational experience, the motivation for plagiarism again increases. In the UAE, it is likely, for example, that the students’ primary and secondary schooling was characterised by rote learning and the quest for a single correct answer, non-transparent and poorly conceived assessment practices, and vast social inequities within the student base, and between students and their often socially and economically disadvantaged teachers. Norms, expectations, and demands learned in this context can be dif? cult to dislodge in subsequent institutions which place a premium on the exploration of problems and solutions, independent and critical thinking skills, and academic integrity. If plagiarism is not de? ned or academic processes made explicit, then such students will ? nd it impossible to reach the standards that are suddenly and (to them) inexplicably imposed on them. Pedagogical approaches may also contribute to the prevalence of plagiarism. Current methodologies place much more emphasis on collaboration and group work, with a greater weight given to out-of-class projects and portfolios at the expense of formal exams. The result is that the line between collaboration and cheating during assessed tasks is blurred, and if this is not explicitly dealt with by assessors, it will inevitably EBS 3,3 170 result in misunderstandings as to what is acceptable. Also, students are more likely to justify cheating if the coursework or assignments they were given were too hard, poorly scaffolded, or based on unreasonable expectations of their abilities (Naidoo, 2008), and plagiarism will be made easier if the assignments are not constructed carefully so that stock answers cannot be copied from the internet (Wood, 2004). However, the institutional context plays perhaps the most critical role. For example, unclear and uncommunicated institutional policies with vague de?  nitions of plagiarism can affect the incidence of plagiarism, as can the application of those policies (McCabe et al. , 2002). Some aspects of an organization may unwittingly encourage plagiarism. For example, in contrast to schools, tertiary education institutions in the UAE do not typically award top grades to large numbers of students, and there is evidence to suggest that students justify using ghostwriters in such an environment because they believe they deserve better grades (Croucher, 2009). An often overlooked but crucial aspect of deterring and detecting plagiarism is the application of institutional policies by teachers. One survey of 800 American academics at 16 institutions found that 40 percent never reported incidents of plagiarism while a further 54 percent did so only seldomly, even though the evidence suggested they must have received plagiarised work (McCabe, 1993 cited in Schneider, 1999). There are many reasons why teachers may be reluctant to report plagiarism. Teachers may feel the potential penalties for students are too high (Auer and Krupar, 2001). They may also be wary of making false accusations which potentially undermine their own professional status. Some teachers object to taking on the role of detective or enforcer as it undermines the mentor-student relationship (Schneider, 1999; Park, 2004) while others may not have the time to make an extra effort to uncover plagiarism and follow it up (Park, 2004). It may also be that some teachers, especially teachers of content subjects where the focus is less on form and more on ideas, may not have suf? ciently developed skills to detect plagiarism. Hyland (2001) found that even teachers who detect plagiarism may use indirect feedback when dealing with plagiarism (for example, comments in the margins such as â€Å"Are these your own words?†) which can lead to miscommunication with the student about what is acceptable. With so many factors at play, the responsibilities of teachers must be clearly codi? ed if any institutional initiative is to have any success. Plagiarism and ESOL/EFL English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts may be more prone to infringements of academic integrity because students lack the English skills to understand the coursework and so may feel that plagiarism offers the only solution (Hyland, 2001; Liu, 2005). Moreover, the cultural conditioning of English as a second language (ESL) and EFL students has been cited as another contributing factor. Moder (1995 cited in Lackie and D’Angelo-Long, 2004, p. 38) suggests that some societies, including those in the Middle East, â€Å"value memorization and imitation as the mark of an educated person† which may mean that plagiarism is viewed as being less signi? cant. Liu (2005, p. 239) disagrees with the notion of cultural conditioning, however, claiming that â€Å"it is  based on incorrect information and is presented often via unwarranted jumps in reasoning and con? ation of separate issues. † More pertinently, perhaps, she goes on to argue that: [. . . ] even if we concede that such cultural conditioning indeed exists to some extent, we still cannot say for sure that it is the main reason that ESOL students plagiarize. There are many other factors that may motivate ESOL students from many L1 backgrounds to plagiarize, including a lack of adequate pro? ciency, lack of task speci?c writing skills, and of course, the urge to cheat (p. 239). Dealing with plagiarism ESOL students, then, whether or not cultural conditioning is accepted as an underlying factor in plagiarism, may still have greater motivation than their ? rst language counterparts to take and use the ideas and words of others in their own assignments. Ironically, plagiarism by ESOL students is also far more likely to be detected because of more prominent differences in language level and tone between copied and original work. Degrees of plagiarism Intuitively, plagiarism varies in its severity in a way that cheating (e. g. using crib sheets or having someone else take a test for you) does not. It can consist of minor lapses, for example, when original material is poorly paraphrased but the source is acknowledged, through deliberately copying parts of a text without citing the source, to submitting work from an online paper mill (Roig, 1997). Critical factors in determining the severity of the plagiarism include the intention behind the plagiarism (was it deliberate or accidental? ), the amount of material that has been plagiarised, the inclusion of the source in the list of references, the degree to which the plagiarised material differs from the source (an indication at an attempt to paraphrase), the time the student has spent in tertiary education, and whether it is the ? rst, second, or subsequent occurrence. Given the wide variation in the seriousness of plagiarism and the developmental process students must undergo to assimilate the norms of academic writing, it is clear that the appearance of plagiarised material is not always a deliberate attempt to cheat. For example, students are often poor at paraphrasing and may not be fully aware that this could be construed as plagiarism. Roig (1999) gave English-speaking undergraduate students a two-sentence paragraph to paraphrase and found that between 41 and 68 percent of the responses contained strings of at least ? ve words or more copied from the original. These results clearly back up the claim that plagiarism may indicate a de? cit in appropriate skills and not intentional academic dishonesty. Towards an institutional response to plagiarism In many educational institutions, plagiarism is seen largely as a teacher/student problem. If plagiarism is detected, then the teacher makes a decision as to whether to escalate the case for possible punitive action. The plagiarism is seen either as morally wrong or as a â€Å"crime† – the breaking of a rule that has inevitable consequences (Blum, 2009). Unfortunately, dealing with plagiarism in this way can result in decisions which are reactive, emotive, and which are made informally on an ad hoc basis, thus inviting inequity and inconsistency. When the focus is directed towards punishment, there may be little maturation in terms of academic integrity for the student concerned, or for those who watch their classmate’s fate from the sidelines. Academic endeavour must take place within an institutional culture that routinely recognises and reinforces the value of academic integrity so that all stakeholders are obliged to proactively follow and uphold best practice in order to reduce the impact of the contributing factors discussed above. This requires the establishment of an institutional response to plagiarism that is comprehensive, appropriate, fair, developmental, transparent, and educative. 171 EBS 3,3 Park (2004, p. 294) describes such an institutional framework for dealing with plagiarism that was developed by a working party at Lancaster University in consultation with staff and with reference to experience and the literature: The working party sought to move the plagiarism discourse beyond just detection and punishment and to situate and embed it in a cohesive framework that tackles the root causes as well as the symptoms of plagiarism as a family of behaviours. 172 The key elements underpinning this framework were consistency and transparency. These were ensured by the explicit codi? cation of stakeholder responsibilities, procedures, and penalties. In order for such a framework to be implemented effectively, Park (2004, p. 296) noted that â€Å"all stakeholders within the institution must understand and appreciate why the framework is necessary and how it protects their own interests. † A case study Park (2004, pp. 295-9) nominated a number of central pillars that lend validity and effectiveness to any such institutional framework. These included transparency, ownership by stakeholders, student engagement, academic integrity, framing the initiative to ensure compatibility with the culture of the institution, focus on prevention and deterrence, and the supportive and developmental nature of the framework. These pillars provide excellent reference points for the approach taken in one department in a college in the UAE and allow us to examine the viability and ef? cacy of such a framework for the local context. The Education Department at Abu Dhabi Women’s College (ADWC) has addressed its concerns with academic honesty in a concerted, collaborative, and multi-faceted fashion. As teacher educators, the faculty in this department are intent on producing future academics. Much like politicians, words, information, and the generation of ideas are the very foundation of our professional lives, so we regard it as essential that the â€Å"rules† of using these appropriately are disseminated, understood, and followed at all times by all of our students. To this end, we have established and adhere to a set of policies and practices at all levels that support and facilitate academic honesty. Institutional/departmental level The HCT, of which ADWC is only one of 16, institutionally mandates the prevention and sanctioning of plagiarism and related offences. Consequences of infringements of these rules are outlined in of?cial policies, Student Handbooks (see for example, HCT, 2008), contracts signed by students at the commencement of their studies, and reinforced by administrative staff and faculty at every student meeting and examination session held throughout the student’s academic career at HCT. From these guidelines, the Education Division throughout the colleges has documented standards and procedures that address academic honesty in its assessment handbooks – one that is distributed to all education students and the other, more comprehensive and speci?c, that is used by all education faculty. This shared written documentation enables best practice in assessment to be disseminated and followed, provides the underlying philosophy and approach for the division as a whole, and addresses academic honesty both directly and indirectly to better support student writing and make plagiarism a less viable or attractive option. The assessment handbooks re? ect the developmental curricular approach of the division as a whole, and so specify the type, nature, and expectations for assessments at each level to scaffold the students’ ability to produce increasingly sophisticated and original work. Ensuring that requirements are reasonable and documented minimises the students’ need to seek help through illegitimate means. These handbooks are the basis of communication within the ADWC Education Department on all matters regarding assessment and have served to ensure a common approach and understanding. Insights gained by instructors in their daily interactions with students and their submissions inevitably reveal general dif?culties facing students, which are then examined in regular formal and informal meetings to brainstorm and implement further strategies that may be useful. The ongoing concern at faculty level with issues of academic honesty is mirrored in the systematic recycling of warnings, information, and explicit instructions to students. As a department, the theft or misappropriation of ideas and words has been, and continues to be, addressed as professionally offensive and inappropriate. Initiatives suggested by Education Department faculty as well as colleagues in other departments and colleges are pursued vigorously. One recent example has been the provision of workshops by library staff on research skills and academic procedures. The plagiarism detection software, Turnitin, was originally adopted by the department as both a defence against plagiarism and a tool to help students protect themselves against accidental plagiarism. This proved to be very effective, but unfortunately access to this subsequently became unavailable. Now, suspicious text samples are input into search engines and all assignments are run through SafeAssign, a plagiarism checker in Blackboard (the online course management system). These have proved to be acceptable alternatives. As Braumoeller and Gaines (2001) found in their study, â€Å"the deterrent effects of actually checking for plagiarism are quite impressive (p. 836). † The departmental approach has included a series of mandatory workshops and masterclasses on academic writing and plagiarism for all students in slightly altered learning contexts designed to motivate, encourage participation, and focus attention. It should be noted that the relatively small size of the department (one chair, six faculty, and fewer than 80 students) makes shared understandings, uniform dissemination of information, and infraction detection much easier and more likely than in a bigger department where students are not familiar to every teacher. Course level Academic writing skills are an important component of all education courses. Referencing skills are taught explicitly in a speci? c course during the students’ ? rst semester, and then constantly reinforced and recycled throughout the programme. The education programmes at the HCT are based on re?  ective practice. This means that assignments are contextualised and require the application rather than the regurgitation of theory, so copying from previously submitted work or in any way buying or commissioning a paper cannot be so easily accomplished as theory has to ? t the student’s individual circumstances. In addition, the student’s right to submit and receive feedback on a ? rst draft of every paper (Assessment Handbook, 2009, p. 7) allows plagiarism, deliberate, or accidental; to be detected and remediated at an earlier stage before punishment becomes the only option. The feedback and scaffolding policy (pp.53-5), which outlines the form and scope of feedback to be given, draws instructor attention to both macro and micro features of the submission, so any attempt to use words or ideas from an external source should be revealed at least a week before ? nal submission. Dealing with plagiarism 173 EBS 3,3 All students submitting assignments in the Education Division are required to sign a declaration on their cover page that the work is entirely their own and all sources have been acknowledged (Assessment Handbook, 2009, p. 47). This provides a ? nal reminder that academic honesty is expected and will be monitored. Faculty responsibilities and input All faculty in the Education Department, regardless of their course allocation, consider themselves teachers of English. This is not only because we each have ESL teaching quali? cations and experience (obviously an advantage), but also because we recognise the importance of language as the vehicle for idea generation and transmission. Language is inseparable from the content area in which those ideas are conceived and manipulated. This can be a very different orientation to that of colleagues in other departments whose subject area specialisation takes precedence. Our more holistic approach means that we explicitly teach both content and the language elements with which to express that content to students who may be struggling with the unfamiliarity of both. It also means that we take our role as defenders of academic integrity very seriously and vigilantly monitor and check student output. As professional ESL teacher educators, we strive to be models of effective language use as well as successful proponents of academic scholarship, so ongoing instruction in both is a routine aspect of teaching and learning in the department. This increased student awareness of appropriate academic writing processes reduces their motivation to misappropriate text written by others. The cultural and social aspects of plagiarism are also given attention by faculty. In a society that places less value on individuality than it does on cooperation and social cohesion, it is important for students to understand that they have not only the right, but the responsibility, to turn down requests for assistance from peers. Faculty not only explain this, but also explain to students how to respond assertively with friends or relatives asking for inappropriate help. Without this, no amount of education or punishment can ever be successful. Student involvement Education students are required to be active participants in their own learning. Because all assessment processes are documented and transparent, they have the ability to question and ask for clari? cation on any aspect that they do not understand. All expectations or consequences are addressed in multiple ways, so ignorance is no defence for malpractice. Submissions of ? rst drafts are perhaps the most critical aspect for students. Although these are universally permitted and scheduled, they are never awarded a mark and are not always actually demanded, so it is up to the student to take advantage of their right to pre-submission feedback. An appropriate framework? The Education Department at ADWC values academic honesty very highly and has organized its procedures and practices accordingly. The very infrequent occurrence of plagiarism is testimony to the effectiveness of: . proactive strategizing; . clear documentation; . reasonable and appropriate expectations; 174 . . . . . awareness raising; sustained faculty vigilance and involvement; support for the development of student skills and cognitive growth; decreased student opportunity and motivation to cheat; and the pervasive sense of professional identity and responsibility that characterise departmental efforts on this issue at all levels. Dealing with plagiarism 175 The work done in this department is thus an arguably successful attempt to â€Å"devise a student plagiarism framework that best suits [our] own culture and circumstances†.

Managing Your Boss – Review

Human Resource Management – Book Review â€Å"Managing Your Boss† by John J. Gabarro and John P. Kotter Harvard Business Review, 2005 Introduction People sometimes do not realize how much their bosses depend on them and many people also do not realize how much they depend on their boss. For example bosses need honesty from manager’s direct reports. People can managing their bosses for very good reasons: to get resources to do the best job, not only for their-selves but also for their bosses and their companies as well. Effective managers take time and effort to manage not only relationship with subordinates but also those with their bosses.This essential aspect of management is sometimes ignored by otherwise talented and aggressive managers. And there are some managers who actively and effectively supervise subordinates, markets, etc assume an almost passively reactive stance when they meet their bosses. With this mutual dependence, effective managers seek out in formation about boss’s concerns and are sensitive to his work style. Whether see the boss as the enemy or viewing the boss as an all-wise parent. Summary The book is divided into four big parts. First part is Misreading The Boss-Subordinate Relationship.This part provide about how two people can on occasional be psychological or temperamentally incapable of working together, where a personality conflict sometimes only a very small part of the problems. Sometimes people did not realize that their relation with their subordinates involved mutual dependence between two unperfected human being. Some people behave base on their thought, that their bosses were not really rely on them. And some people behave as they not really rely on their bosses. To manage situation like this we need a good understanding of the other person and ourselves, and use that information to develop and anage a compatible working atmosphere that compatible with both people’s work style and assets. S econd part is about Understanding The Boss where we need to appreciate our boss’s goals and pressures, strengths and weakness, their organizational and personal objectives, their long suits and blind spot. And also the detail of their style of working like how they like to get information through memos, formal meeting or phone calls? Managers cannot avoid unnecessary conflicts, and problems without that information. Sensitive to a boss’s style can be crucial especially when the boss is new.Third part is about Understanding Yourself where we need to develop an effective working relationship requires, and then knows our own needs. We not going to change our basic personality but we can be more aware about what impedes us and we can facilitates working with our bosses. With that, relationship became more effective. Gaining self-awareness and acting on it are difficult but not impossible. There are two types of managers, counter dependence and overdependence. Both lead man agers to hold unrealistic view of what a boss is, and ignore that most bosses, are imperfect and fallible.Forth part is Developing and Managing The Relationship. With a clear understanding about ourselves and our boss, we can usually create a way of working together that fits both of us. That can help ourselves and our boss be more productive and effectively. Find a compatible work style. Peter Drucker divides bosses into listener and reader. Some like to get information in report so they can read and study about it, other better with information presented in person so they can ask question. Discover mutual expectation from both sides. Some bosses will spell out their expectations very explicit and detail, but must do not.Effective managers will find ways to get that information. Mutual expectation requires us to communicate our own expectation to the boss. Effective managers recognize that they probably under estimate what their bosses need to know, and make sure they find ways to keep them informed through processes that fit their styles. It is almost impossible for bosses to work effectively if they cannot rely on a fairly accurate reading from their subordinate. Managers need to use their boss’s time effectively. Critique In this book, managing your boos doesn’t mean tricking or leading your boss.But it is more likely to make a supportive working atmosphere with your boss. In order for you to gave the best, not only for company and your boss benefits but also for yourself. The most important is for you. Managing your boss need to understand what are boss needs, working style, his or her strengths, and weaknesses. Act like a detective. It just likes mutual dependence between two fallible human beings. A good understanding of other person and yourself especially regarding strengths, weaknesses, work styles and needs is a must. And then use that information to develop and manage a healthy working relationship.It’s a right way to effective ly managing your boss. Smart way to avoiding conflict and make mistake. According to boss’s opinion, employees sometimes did too many wrong things that spending their time. But it not always because of employees really did a wrong thing, but sometimes also because of the boss being vague about what he need and his expectation. It’s hard to find out because some bosses are unclear and lazy to explaining the details because it will consume much time to explain it. But in other hand employees sometimes become a victim of bad bosses.It just likes two different perspectives about boss-subordinate relationship. To understand your boss, the article says, we need to appreciate his goals and pressure, strengths and weakness, his long suit and blinds spot and even his preferable to get information through. To understanding yourself, there are two behaviors, counter dependent and over dependent. One see boss as an enemy, other see boss as an all-wise parent. Both behaviors failed to understand boss as a fallible human. Boss also have their own pressures and concerns, they also have limited time, don’t have encyclopedic knowledge or extrasensory perception.If you aware enough of these issues, and understand about the different, you can estimate in which area we fall, that might affect relationship between you and your boss. Finding his hot buttons, little things that people do will annoy them. Hot buttons are hard to anticipate but employee need to watch their boss closely to see what kind of things can pushes that hot buttons. Next step is to find a way of working that suits employee and boss. Work style can be customized and adapted so that you communicate become more effectively. How much information does your boss want?Peter Drucker categorizing bosses as â€Å"listeners† or â€Å"readers. † We need to brief â€Å"listener† in person, then follow it up with a memo. Some want a really detail about everything that employees are doing, including background information. Other just wants a quick short brief overview and become impatient when employee describes explanations. Finding out whether your boss is a 5 minute boss or a 30 minute boss or not at all, will make relationship between employee and boss flow more smoothly. Cover important items on proposal, in a memo or report for a â€Å"reader† then discuss it with them.Building mutual expectations is important. Specify a boss's expectations can be tricky, employee need to think creatively, perhaps sending boss memos outlining expectations and scheduling follow-up meetings to cover the memos. Employees should keep their boss as informed as possible, in ways that suit their boss style. Meeting deadlines is critical, and honesty is still the best policy, particularly where your boss is concerned. Conclusion In my opinion, it is just about two fallible, that really a human thing. Every employee need to read this book, to open their eyes about unseen th ings in their everyday working.Although it not as easy as turning our hands, we need to have a really good understanding, not only our bosses, bur also ourselves. Beside we need to be a detective, we also need to care about every detail things about our bosses. It is easy to read, but maybe a little bit hard to do it, it requires a lot of mutual understanding. Just like building, managing and taking care of our own relationship with our boyfriend or girlfriend. This is a really interesting and very useful book for my career. It told me everything that I didn’t realize all this time.

The Factors That Lead An Individual Towards Gang Involvement

Introduction On the surface, the criminogenic factors that can lead an individual towards gang involvement are similar amongst Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal gang members. However, upon closer inspection, it is the experience of colonization that drastically sets these two groups apart. That is, the impact and the trauma caused by the colonization of the Aboriginal people of Canada is the predominant factor that exacerbates and intensifies criminogenic factors associated with Aboriginal gang participation (Totten, 2009, 137; Bracken, Deane Morrissette, 2009, 68; Peters, 2011, 83; MacRae-Krisa, 2013, 11; Goodwill, 2009, 12). The colonization process must be understood, and treated, as the originating source of Aboriginal gangs. It is†¦show more content†¦Although some of these practices no longer exist, such as residential schools, the impact and trauma inflicted by them remains intact. The active attempt of the Canadian government to abolish Aboriginal people is the divergen t factor that separates Aboriginal gangs from non-Aboriginal gangs. Through cultural genocide, the Canadian government attempted to destroy practices and factors that would allow the Aboriginal group to continue as a group (TRCC, 2015, 1). Cultural genocide is an experience that is unique to Aboriginal people. Colonization generally, and cultural genocide specifically, have created an environment in which criminogenic factors disproportionately burden Aboriginal people (Totten, 2009, 137). Aboriginal gangs and underlying criminogenic factors must be understood in relation to the trauma caused by colonization. Criminogenic Factors Systemic Racism The legacy of colonialism and racism in Canada are inherently linked together (Bracken, et al., 2009, 62). Racism is a particularly salient factor to consider when discussing Aboriginal gangs, because racist philosophies were used to shape and constrain the popular discourse around Aboriginal people from contact onwards. The colonizers perceived the Aboriginal population to be a lesser group of people, and these racist beliefs are what supported and