Oreo Cookie and Six Flags Commercials - Nostalgia for Sale :: Media Advertising Essays

Oreo Cookie and Six Flags Commercials - Nostalgia available to be purchased Numerous TV advertisements decide to include a complexity among youth and development as their subject. A â€Å"Oreo Cookie† business, for instance, includes a young lady who is around four years of age emulating her grandfather’s activities in eating a treat. Another business publicizes the mainstream amusement park, Six Flags Great Adventure. This business, entitled â€Å"The Six Flags Dancing Man,† highlights an older man moving like an excited kid. This identifies with Stephen King’s thought in â€Å"My Creature from the Black Lagoon,† that grown-ups long for and are regularly helped to remember their adolescence. In the interim, Rita Dove’s article, â€Å"Loose Ends,† and Marie Winn’s exposition, â€Å"Television Addiction,† each presents the extraordinary impact TV has on life, frequently in view of television’s incredible part of the real world. Together, these thoughts bolster the thinking behind an adverti sement’s endeavor to sell conceptual thoughts. By utilizing youth and mature age in plugs, promoters can sell wistfulness as a method of making advertisements increasingly critical. Nabisco, the organization that produces Oreo Cookies, has consistently been known for exceptional advertisements. However this â€Å"Oreo Cookie† business is maybe the most exceptional. To start with, she contorts the treat separated and afterward, this adorable young lady with her hair in ponytails continues to dunk the treat in a tall glass of milk, lowering her whole hand. The camera at that point movements to show the child’s granddad eating the treat in a similar way. This commercial targets driving crowds to think back of the straightforward joys of their adolescence, such as getting a charge out of a treat. At the same time, the sponsors have made a significant business. Likewise, in â€Å"The Six Flags Dancing Man† business, relatives are perched on the entryway patio of their home, attempting to orchestrate a day to spend at Six Flags Great Adventure. On account of their bustling calendars, the endeavor appears to be outlandish. Out of nowhere, a red school transport pulls up and an extremely elderly person stumbles off, wearing a dark tuxedo and a red tie. At that point, energetic music starts to play and the man starts moving uncontrollably, welcoming the family on board the transport to go to Six Flags Great Adventure. The family cheerfully joins the elderly person and the transport pulls away.

The long term effects of washington's up from slavery Research Proposal

The drawn out impacts of washington's up from servitude - Research Proposal Example He will cut his place in history in the event that he can travel a significant path in expelling prejudice from the American mind. I regularly discover the issue of my shading an awkward one and am even enticed to disregard it however things that continue occurring in the social, social and political existence of my nation continue helping me to remember the troublesome power of prejudice. It is in the treatment of the dark detainees and segregation in the matter of equity, openings for work and concealment of rights. I think that its hard to acknowledge the differential treatment simply because of my skin shading, simply because I look dark, and the manner in which it decreases my pertinence as an individual. That, nonetheless, doesn't end my fantasy of a shading free existence where mankind will be the main reality. Also, that reality I would prefer not to conceived out of any empathy of the white individuals for the dark individuals or out of a cognizant exhibition of radicalism o f the whites for the non-whites however out of a set up arrangement of equivalent open doors for the dark individuals in each circle of life like instruction, work and different rights to have their legitimate spot in the public eye. Bigotry isn't something that will stop if the individuals quit discussing it. Jack Dovidio, a University of Connecticut teacher and a scientist of bigotry for more than three decades, assessed that around 80 percent of White Americans have supremacist sentiments they may not perceive (Shabazz 2007). It might have changed structure yet is particularly there in the new thousand years when for comparative offense, a dark is detained and the white departures with common charges. This sort of experience delivers in me a basic feeling of logical inconsistency that now for longer than a century has been frequenting the dark network. Isn't our way to deal with our battle for fairness with the whites as to social, political and monetary rights without anyone else the very absolute opposite of our accomplishment in this undertaking In my view, the contention began from the time Booker T. Washington began the procedure of bargain with the white to make sure about a spot for the dark in America. I don't state that the strategy of bargain with the target of joining the races followed by Washington was without worth with regards to the standardized bigotry winning in America around then. He required the participation of the white as additionally their compassion to see that such settlement could at any rate check prejudice of various sorts against the dark. His aim to accomplish white compassion and participation is not any more articulated than in the Atlanta Compromise (1895) where he discussed cooperating for common advancement. It was gotten by the radicals as a total acquiescence of the interest for common and political uniformity; the moderates, as a liberally considered working reason for shared comprehension (DuBois 1903). I discover reverberation of this trade off I am discussing in the personal record Up From Slavery (Washington 1901) depicting a confidence that never appeared in future race relations. 3 Washington in his exertion not to cause some disruption the requirement for an increasingly forceful way to deal with engage the Negroes by making them strategically and instructively solid which could make their development against prejudice self-continuing and not reliant on the white accommodativeness. I discover it all the while excruciating and

Politics and Morality essays

Legislative issues and Morality articles Legislative issues and Morality: Is There Enough Room for Both? Legislative issues and ethics are two of the most confounding terms that our reality needs to characterize. There are such huge numbers of waiting inquiries concerning the two terms; particularly when the possibility of the terms being utilized together emerges. Is it conceivable to have a framework that utilizes both? Or then again from an alternate light, is it conceivable to have a framework that doesn't utilize both? I would contend that ethical quality assumes a huge job in legislative issues and is the significant rule that splits our reality into states. In the cutting edge world it is difficult to have framework that doesn't characterize itself with ethics. Each state orchestrates a method of administering itself, in any case, that standard is made by the numerous social collectivities that make up a state. A portion of these countries share personalities or birthplaces or a rundown of different resemblances, anyway they all offer a type of regularity. That common piece of their lives causes them to make ethics which thusly that country uses to help characterize the standard for the state. On the off chance that all states depend on profound quality, however, what is preventing one state from assaulting another in light of the fact that it has disregarded a portion of its ethics? Our reality would be a consistent combat zone if states where assaulting states over good exemplary nature. So how is a state to choose whether or not to do battle over an issue? Also, is it directly for an express A to mediate in state Bs struggle dependent on state As ethics? Questions, for example, these were a portion of the reasons that worldwide bodies, for example, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization were established. These bodies were to unite states to go to an accord on issues with the goal that they would be settled such that was best for the world all in all. From an alternate light one may ask who is to ensure that the states are acting in a manner that is best for the world and not shaping coalitions to get what is best for their state? What's more, that reason alo... <!

The Flood Comparing Gilgamesh and the Bible - Literature Essay Samples

The story of the flood in Genesis 6-9 in the Old Testament is familiar to the readers of the Bible, but the record of such a flood first appears much earlier in ca. 2,500 B.C. on the eleventh tablet of the Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh. Although thousands of years stand in between the Bible and Gilgamesh, the story of the flood prevails; the authors of the Bible mirror the flood of Gilgamesh in Genesis. The flood is significant to the Bible and makes an appearance in Genesis because it carries values of human life and piety, and messages about the relationship between God and mankind. The Biblical flood follows closely to the Gilgamesh flood, but the two are not identical. Comparing and contrasting the two stories of the flood, the authors of the Bible mimic much of the mythical flood, but also change and innovate certain pieces of the plot. Both similarities and differences between the flood in Gilgamesh and the flood in Genesis matter because they tell us what values and messages of the flood the authors of the Bible wanted to preserve from the Mesopotamian epic and communicate to the readers of the Bible, and what values and messages the authors of the Bible wanted to change about the Mesopotamian epic, why, and what these changes mean. The story of the flood in the epic of Gilgamesh and Noahs flood in Genesis share a series of similarities. First, the flood is a result of godly anger and/or disappointment with mankind. In Gilgamesh, Enlil is disturbed by mans clamor and uproar. In Genesis, God repents his creation because it has become wicked and evil. Second, two men, Utnapishtim of the epic of Gilgamesh and Noah of Genesis, are chosen to be saved from the flood and given instruction on how to survive. In Gilgamesh, Ea tells Utnapishtim to â€Å"tear down his house and build a boat, abandon possessions and look for life.† In Genesis, God finds grace in Noah and tells him to â€Å"make thee an ark.† Third, Utnapishtim and Noah save their relatives and samples of species of land animals. In both stories the instruction is to bring â€Å"two of every sort [of living thing of flesh] into the ark.† And finally, after the flood subsides there is a sacrifice where the Babylonian gods and the Biblical God feel sorry about and/or regret the flood. In Gilgamesh, Ishtar cries â€Å"I commanded wars to destroy the people, but are they not my people, for I brought them forth? Now like the spawn of fish they float in the ocean,† and later with Ea chastises Enlil for â€Å"senselessly bringing the flood without reflectionand consigning [Ishtars people] to destruction. In Genesis, God promises â€Å"never to curse the ground for mans sake and smite every living thing againday and night shall not cease.† The similarities between the Gilgamesh flood and the Biblical flood show the values and messages the authors of the Bible preserve from the Mesopotamian era and pass on to the readers of the Bible. First, much like the mythical Mesopotamian flood, the Biblical flood presents a world where mankind angers the god(s) that created it, and where disobedience is met with dire results. Mankind is corrupted and intolerable, and evil beyond reproach, and the divinity is set to exterminate it. This demonstrates not only the fact that men are capable of sin and that they should keep pious, that is, they should never abuse their God and drive him to his limit, but also that God ultimately holds the power over men and can do with men what is suitable or even what he pleases. This reveals that the authors of the Bible wanted to preserve an image of a strong and powerful God, one who can exhibit his power and punish his people when the situation calls for it. Second, in both flood stories the divin ity chooses a man to save himself, his family, and a number of land animals. Though both the gods of Gilgamesh and the Biblical God send the flood to wipe out all life, there is a clear message; men must die, but humanity is meant to survive and continue, animals are meant to multiply, and earth is meant to be fruitful again. This part of the flood story communicates a very important value, that there are second chances, because no matter how mankind has angered its god(s), the god(s) still finds it within himself to give humanity another chance. This second chance demonstrates that though men will do bad and they will be punished for it, God is not all vengeful, he is loving enough to forgive and start over again. Finally, like in the flood of Gilgamesh, in the Biblical flood God feels sorry for sending the flood and regrets it. This puts the divinity in a better light with men; god(s) is caring and compassionate after all, and most of all admits to his own misdoings. The gods in G ilgamesh regret the flood almost immediately and â€Å"when Utnapishtim prepares a sacrifice the [gods] gather like flies† because they depend on humans to eat. The God in the Bible especially is portrayed to lament his actions because though he exterminated evildoers, these evildoers were still his people. The authors of the Bible wanted to show that God, just like men, is responsible for his actions, and he must also think of the consequences of his actions. When god(s) feels sorry for the flood in the end, the conclusions is meant to teach a lesson not only to mankind, but also to God, and the message is to foster a new, better relationship between men and their god(s), one where both parties respect one another. The similarities that lay in common between the flood of Gilgamesh and the flood of Genesis shows that the authors of the Bible saw an important lesson they wanted to preserve and teach to the readers of the Bible; men should respect their God and God will respect them, and men need God as much as God needs men. It predates the Bible and Genesis, but it is the staple of Christian theology to this day. The story of the flood in the epic of Gilgamesh and Noahs flood in Genesis also differ. These difference show the values and messages the authors of the Bible change about the Mesopotamian epic. First, the gods of Gilgamesh send the flood without a reasonable cause, whereas the Biblical God sends the flood as a punishment. The Babylonia gods, though they form the decision in a counsel, are never in consensus about the flood. Ishtar says that she will â€Å"remember these days as she remembers the jewels on her throat, that these last days she will not forget.† Ea, and all the rest of the gods except Enlil seem to have never agreed with the flood as a suitable punishment; Ea proclaims, if man has sinned, punish him, but punish him a little or he will perisha lion, a wolf, famine, pestilence would have ravaged mankind rather than the flood,† in other words the punishment does not fit the crime. Enlil is left alone to blame, and his decision to send the flood is ultimately a mere impulse. In Genesis, God brings the flood as a form of a punishment, there is a reason for the flood, and the object of the punishment is plain. God makes a rational verdict because he is motivated by an ethical reason; he punishes the corrupt, but saves the righteous. The authors of the Bible see in the Mesopotamian epic gods who are dangerous to mortals, who play by their own rules, and act as emotionally and irrationally as children, sending the flood to kill all of mankind on a mere caprice. Genesis has one God, he is neither dangerous nor childlike. God is a rational, an ethical, and a thinking god, who is not only what is most powerful, but also what is morally best. And most importantly God sends the flood not because men are too noisy, but because he â€Å"repents his creationand it grieves him at his heart.† Another difference on the topic of divinity is certain actions of the gods in and around the flood. One difference is how the Babylonian gods behave durin g the flood; â€Å"the gods are terrified at the flood, they flee to the highest heavens, crouch against the walls, and cower like cursIshtar cries like a woman in travail.† The Gilgamesh gods are fearful and weak, whereas God is strong and determined, he is not made to fear his own flood and look weak or vulnerable. Another difference or rather omission in this case that the authors of the Bible make is when Utnapishtim asks god Ea how to answer the people and the city when he will perform Eas commands. Ea directs Utnapishtim to tell the city this: â€Å"Enlil is wrathful against me and I will no longer live in his land, so I will go down to the Gulf of dwell my lord Ea †¦ but to you Ea will rain down abundance of rare fish, wild fowl, rich harvest †¦ and wheat’.† This of course is false, and Ea is the one who promotes the lie. What makes this even worse is the irony of the situation, that is, Utnapishtim promises his city an abundance of fish and fow l and rich harvest where really all the city is going to get is the flood. Genesis omits this part of the story, God is not made to promote falsehood, and Noah simply builds the ark and boards it. But there is a better explanation for this, and it is the difference between Utnapishtim and Noah. A third important difference lies between Utnapishtim and Noah. Utnapishtim is not selected to survive the flood based on any virtue, he merely owes his survival to Eas cleverness. The gods do not distinguish men who are worthy to be punished from men who are not, reverence and piety have no effect on who lives and who dies and why Utnapishtim is chosen to survive. Noah, on the other hand, is selected by his grace, God chooses him because of how good of a man Noah is compared to the rest of mankind. His righteousness and piety matter. Utnapishtim also loads all of his gold into his boat. The authors of the Bible make no reference to gold in Genesis to avoid placing any emphasis on gold, because the focus of the Biblical flood is the survival of life, and life alone, not wealth. The final difference between the flood in Gilgamesh and the flood in Genesis is the ending scene of the story, the last interaction between the survivor and his God(s). The gods in Gilgamesh make an error sending the flood to exterminate mankind and try to atone for it by making Utnapishtim and his wife immortal so that humanity is never in danger of extinction again. The immortality aspect of the story demonstrates not only that gods fear they are harmful to humanity because they cannot control their actions, but also that something like the flood may reoccur, so immortality is the safest way mankind survives its gods. God in Genesis, in contrast, makes a covenant with his people, they are to behave and be good and God will be good in return according to the covenant. Thus, God is a partner in a covenant and a strict but loving parent. He does not need to make Noah immortal to make sure humanity survives, but instead simply builds mutual trust between man and himself, and that is en ough for mankind to coexist with God and live on. When composing the story of the flood in Genesis, the authors of the Bible mimic much of the earlier mythical flood in Gilgamesh. In fact, the two stories are so similar that it becomes significant to see exactly what values and messages, that the story of the flood carries, Genesis borrows from the epic, and in turn preserves from the ancient Babylonian era. And that is, god(s) are powerful and vengeful, but also caring and loving, and men should respect their god(s) and god(s) will respect them. However, as similar as the two stories of the flood are, there are differences, and these differences are peculiar because they tell us what the authors of the Bible wished to omit, innovate, or change about the original. It is with the differences, that we see that the two stories of the flood, though again similar in plot, happen to promote two very different moral dimensions. While the lesson in the Gilgamesh flood is that though human life is brief and men die, humanity continues and go ds are a reminder of a mans place in the large scheme of things, the lesson in the Biblical flood is that there is a powerful but caring God who fosters a relationship with men in which he rewards the good and punishes the bad. —References— The Epic of Gilgamesh. The Flood. The Bible. The Great Flood.

The Use of Iconoclasm in the Middle East as a Method of...

Throughout human history power imbalances have been prevalent in almost every civilization. One method of controlling people as well as power is to control how much knowledge gets out to the masses. This paper examines how iconoclasm is used in the Middle East as a method of controlling popular opinions and thoughts on race,sex and many other important details of everyday life. Iconoclasm is the systemic destruction of religious or cultural pieces of artwork for political or religious reasons. The destruction of artifacts can rewrite cultural history and change opinions on how the history of a nation is perceived. This also results in extensive loss of cultural history which can never be recovered. The Middle East is of particular interest in this research paper as it has been in the news recently for such acts. Most Middle Eastern countries have Islam listed as their official religion. In Islam it is forbidden to show the face of Allah, the God of Islam, in any form of artwork. It i s also seen as taboo to have any living creatures such as humans or animals depicted in a mosque, the Islamic place of worship. As such, many buildings which have been converted into mosques have been defaced to suit the proper Islamic code. One such incident of this happening is the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. Once a Roman Catholic church, it was converted into a mosque after the conquer of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Turks and all mosaics depicting Jesus, His mother and saints were

Managing Resistance In Organizations Samples †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Managing Resistance In Organizations. Answer: Introduction As change continues to become one of the most significant aspects that trigger good performance in organizations, employees have different perceptions towards it (Christopher, 2010). Change management in organizations has become one of the key aspects to be consider in organizations because due to various reasons. Because managers understand the importance of chance acceptance in businesses, they try their best to assist their employees understand that not all changes lead to negative influence in organizations. Although managers try much to encourage change in their companies, managing resistance is challenging due to various issues which stem from employees perception that a change is always aimed to influence their wellbeing (Tidd Bessant, 2013). This paper will look at the reasons that make managers to frequently demonise change, the ethical implications of demonising change and the reasons that make employees to resist change. The paper will also examine the relationship between power and resistance in context of organizational change, and the key ethical issues associated with power and resistance. Why employees resist change Although change may be inevitable in organizations, not all employee perceive it as something that can lead to good performance. Employees resist change because of various reasons, one of them being fear of failure (Berman, 2014). In the course of implementing a change, some staff members may feel the need of dwelling on the past because they feel it was more secure and successful. If what they did in the past worked according to their expectations, they may resist accepting the change because of fear that they may not attain much in the future. Bad management of change is also an issue that makes employees to resist change. For change to be successful, the management should use various strategies to make the employees understand why the change is being implemented, and the likely impacts which may result (Fok-Yew, 2014). Failing to manage change process in the right manner may make employees to perceive the change as a threat and end up resisting it. Some employees see a change only from the perspective of the impact it may have on them and their jobs (Ionescu, 2015). They fail to see the big picture, and also fail to realize the positive implication of the change on the organization as a whole. Thus, they perceive the change as disruptive and totally unnecessary in their workplace. Surprise and the fear of unknown is also another factor which makes employee to resist change. When a change is implemented without informing staffs in advance, it can make the employees to push back because of the fear of unknown (Kumar, 2016). Implementing change does not require springing surprises in an organization. The person in charge for the change should use various strategies to prepare people concerning the changes that are to be implemented. In the absence of two way communication with employees, grapevine rumours will always fill the void and disrupt the change efforts. Peer pressure among employees also result to change resistance (Musil, 2012). In some cases, employees resist change with the aim of protecting the interests of their group. This happens especially in organizations where employees feel they should support what their counterparts support and resist what they resist. Why managers frequently consider resistance as a problem that should be addressed Change resistance is a problem which is greatly impacting managers from implementing some of processes that are fundamental for the success of an organizations. Change is fundamental in organizations because without it, firms may experience various challenges like losing their competitive edge, low productivity among others (Kogila, 2016). Managers feel change resistance is an issue that need to be addressed because it may make them to experience challenges in addressing some issues may be threat to good performance of businesses. Although in some cases a change may have negative impact on employees, some of them resist it without good reason (Pihlak, 2013). Managers consider change resistance as an issue that need to be addressed because it significantly impacts implementation of various strategies that are important in making an organization to attain its goals. Change resistance makes managers to experience difficulties in responding to internal and external pressure. One of the reasons why an organization implement changes is to address the pressure which comes from customers, competitors, employees, shareholders, changing government among others (Skvarciany, 2015). When employees resist to change, responding to these kind of pressures becomes hard for the managers. When some of these issues are not addressed, they can lead to serious implications to the company. For managers to direct an organization in a manner that can make it to succeed, they should use various management techniques (Anderson, 2011). For some of these techniques to become effective, various changes must be implemented. When employees resist changes, managers experience difficulties in implementing the right strategies that can assist their firms to operate in a manner that can make them to attain their goals. In some cases, employees resist implementation of new technologies in organizations because they feel it can make them lose their jobs. Adapting technological advancements in organizations plays a major role in assisting organizations to perform better (Oss Hek, 2011). Change resistance makes managers to experience difficulties in implementing such technologies because they feel employees may think they are meant to make them lose their jobs. Change resistance impacts managers from leading their organizations in a manner which can make them remain successful (Bareil, 2013). In some cases, employees tend to develop negative attitude towards managers who implement change from time to time and without using the right process. This kind of relationship may make the employees not commit their efforts in the activities they undertake. Relationship between power and resistance in the context of organisational change Managing an organization where change resistance exist is challenging. Managers need to implement change in their companies for them to succeed (Muo, 2014). If the change is resisted, they often find it hard to lead the organization towards attaining goals. Resistance makes managers to experience difficulties in practicing some forms of leadership styles. Wrong exercise of power results to resistance especially when the employees do not like the leader (Wilson, 2014). The reason why this happens is because when employees develop a negative attitude towards a leader, they always feel what is being done is wrong. Exercising good leadership style especially in organizations where change is implemented from time to time is always fundamental. Exercising some of the leadership styles where change resistance exist is always difficult because some of them like for example dictatorship type of leadership does not allow the right change process to be used. In some cases, the manner in which power is used in organizations determines whether employees will resist or accept changes (Ziemba, 2015). For example in a place where the senior management involves employees in planning for the change, the chances of resistance remains low, but in organizations where the managers feel that they must implement change irrespective of whether it will be accepted or not, the possibility of resisting changes are always high. Key ethical issues associated with power and resistance When employee accept to reject a change, they show to their seniors what they feel is right or wrong (Berman, 2014). When changes are likely to bring negative impact to staff members like for example layoffs, change of processes among others, those who are likely to be affected reject it. By doing so, they express their decision concerning the wrongness of that change. Although in some cases managers may feel change resistance should not happen in an organization, sometimes it plays a significant role in making the decision makers to only make decisions that are right (Kogila, 2016). Resistance to change may also prevent managers from implementing changes that may negatively impact the success of an organization. This means apart from viewing change resistance as an issue that should be addressed, they should also view it as a factor that should exist in organizations especially when the management wants to avoid making decisions which can make the company to fall in various pitfalls. Employers often see employees who resist change as those who do need the organization to prosper (Kumar, 2016). They sometimes develop negative attitude towards such employees and even end up firing or demoting them. It is wrong to do so because a change may have a negative impact on employees and they must resist it because no one wants something which can negatively impact his/her wellbeing. It is unethical to forcefully implement a change is wrong. Managers should always use the right process of bringing a change in an organization (Kumar, 2016). This should involve alerting employees about the change before being implemented, informing them concerning the reasons why the company feel the change is important, telling them about the likely impacts which may result from the change and how the company plans to assist those who may be affected. Managers should always think about transforming their organizations while valuing the wellbeing of their employees. If a change is likely to impact the staff members, the management should come up with good strategies of assisting those employees so that they can feel the company appreciates them (Bareil, 2013). Managers must also ensure a change is meant for the benefits of the organization and not personal gains. This is because it is wrong for organizations heads to only implement changes that give them personal gains without considering how it will hurt the performance or the wellbeing of their employees. The implications of the managerial and of resistant positions for achieving an effective change management programme Managers and supervisors play a critical role in times of change. When wrong strategies of driving change are used, the chances of resistance are always high. Resistance to change has numerous implications in organizations (Tidd Bessant, 2013). Some of these implications comprise of being unable to implement new technologies, new processes among others. When this happens the company experience a lot of pressure from its competitors, a situation which may lead to losing market share, customers, and even collapsing of the business. Change resistance impacts the manner in which managers direct an organization (Tidd Bessant, 2013). If for example employees always resist changes in their workplace, it makes it hard for managers to make some of the decisions which are fundamental for the success of the business (Berman, 2014). Decisions are important because they assist managers to know how they will run the organization in a manner that can assist it to attain its goals. Resistance to change impact important processes that are critical in improving productivity. For example, when a company decides to implement technology in its production process, some employees may feel the suggested technology will make them loose jobs (Pihlak, 2013). This kind of notion makes them to resist the plans even when it is not meant to make anyone loose his/her job. This resistance makes the company to sometimes experience challenges in producing products that can make it to meet the demand of its customers. Conclusions Managers demonize change as an issue that should be addressed because it impacts implementation various things that are fundamental for the success of organizations. There are numerous reasons that make employees to resist change, some of them being fear of unknown, losing jobs, peer pressure, bad management of change process among others. In some cases, change resistance plays a role in preventing managers from making wrong decisions. This means apart from being seen as something which can negatively impact business operations, it should also be perceived as important in making the managers to do what is right. Accepting or resisting a change shows that employees are responding to what they feel is right or wrong. Change is important for organizations and therefore managers should help all employees to understand that not all changes have negative impact on their wellbeing. Although change resistance can be understood as a factors that can prevent an organization from landing in various pitfalls, various ethical implications which can significant impact the success of an organization. When a change is forced, problems arise. These problems may have serious impact to the organization. For example, it can impact critical decisions from being implemented, prevent managers from dealing with internal and external pressure, make an organization not to implement technologies and management styles that can assist the organization to realize success among others. Change management entails thoughtful planning and strategic implementation. Consulting and assisting employees who are likely to be affected by the change is vital. References Anderson, A. (2011). Engaging Resistance: How Ordinary People Successfully Champion Change. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. Bareil, C. (2013). Two Paradigms about Resistance to Change. Organization Development Journal, 31(3), 587-601. Berman, P. (2014). Successful Business Process Management: What You Need to Know to Get Results. New York: American Management Association . Christopher, D. (2010). Leading Culture Change: What Every CEO Needs to Know. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. Fok-Yew, O. H. (2014). Management of Change and Operational Excellence in the Electrical and Electronics Industry. International Review of Management and Business Research, 3(2), 89-102. Ionescu, V. C. (2015). Management of Organizational Change Processes. Manager, (2), 98-115. Kogila, R. (2016). Change Management and Its Influence on Business. Advances in Management, 9(10), 89-98. Kumar, S. (2016). Change Management. South Asian Journal of Management, 23(1), 152-168. Muo, I. (2014). The Other Side of Change Resistance. International Review of Management and Business Research, 3(1), 25-60. Musil, T. (2012). Facilities Change Management. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 20(1), 25-68. Oss, L. V., Hek, J. V. (2011). Why Organizational Change Fails: Robustness, Tenacity and Change in Organizations. New York: Routledge. Pihlak, . (2013). Change Management in Indian Organizations Compared to Chinese and Estonian Organizations (2009-2011). Baltic Journal of Economics, 13(1), 325-385. Skvarciany, V. J. (2015). The Role of Change Management in Trust Formation in Commercial Banks. Business: Theory and Practice, 16(4), 98-112. Tidd, J., Bessant, J. (2013). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley. Wilson, J. (2014). Managing Change Successfully: Overcome Resistance through Strategy, Communications, and Patience. Journal of Accountancy, 217(4), 23-56. Ziemba, E. I. (2015). Change Management in Information Systems Projects for Public Organizations in Poland. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge and Management, 10, 78-98.

Contents For a Compare and Contrast Essay

Contents For a Compare and Contrast EssayContents for a compare and contrast essay that are the things that make it special. These ideas are what you can focus on and when writing the contents for your essay, you will have something to work with. This will be the main idea to help you focus on, so that you can help students and adults to read your write up.Different people read in a different way. When they are reading essays, some students read a lot faster. They read for facts and they want to get through as fast as possible. Some students need more time to read the content, because they need to think about what they are reading and where they are going with it.Some students are interested in reading because they want to learn a different point of view. For example, if someone is passionate about a topic, then they may want to know how the other person thinks about the same subject. The other person can be a friend or a teacher. The point is, they have an opinion that they are pass ionate about and they want you to know about it.Some students read with a lot of emotion, as they want to find out what the other person is thinking. When a student reads, they do it because they have emotion or they want to find out what the other person is feeling. These people will often feel some sort of connection to the topic. When they are reading, they want to learn how the others are feeling.For a writer to be able to write in a different way, it is important to look at both sides of the debate and look at the different viewpoints. One way to accomplish this is to have a third party comment on your topic. There are plenty of people that are willing to comment on the information you provide, so that you can better understand what is going on.These people can give their opinions and they can help you come up with your own. When you understand their thoughts and what they believe in, then you can ask them questions about the topic that will help you better understand the topic . They can also help you to see things from a different viewpoint that you may not be aware of.There are many different perspectives that can be found when you look at all of the different viewpoints. You may notice that your opinions about a topic may change because of another viewpoint. It is important to consider all the different points of view and see what you can learn from them.If you want to better understand your students, it is important to write the content for a compare and contrast essay about two different viewpoints. If the third party comment is enough, then you can include one or two more. From there, you will be able to come up with a better understanding of the topic.