The Mixed Economy of Egypt

The Mixed Economy of Egypt Egypt Egypt, like many other states, has a mixed economy (El-Askhar, p. 101).[1] A mixed economy is an economic system that upholds both public and private sectors in the selected state (Ignacy, p.16).[2] The concept in which the economic system in Egypt is mixed can be subdivided into two parts. The first one which is a common phenomenon is the participation of both government and private capital in the countries business. The second, who is not applied in most worldwide economies, is the application of both Islamic and non-Islamic sculpts into the business province (El-Askhar, p. 101).1 There are cultural aspects that shape the economic system in a unique mix. The socialistic, capitalistic and the Muslim fundamentalism elements all shape the Egyptian society. The socialism that was prevalent in the 1950s has faded away considerably; Sadats â€Å"open door† policies have opened up the doors to true capitalism and drifted slowly away from Nassers socialism (El-Askhar, p. 102).1 The policy increased the private sectors as opposed to the government sectors considerably, and has brought with it foreign enterprises. The financial sect of the state was no longer exclusive to the government, but has included privately owned Egyptian and non-Egyptian banks. The number of banks has increased from a mere seven to ninety-nine banks from between the 1960s to 1984. The state controlled sectors still existed, but the increase of private sectors merely happened from the broadening and widening of their base. They have been accountable for other varied sectors in the economy as shown in this (El-Askhar, p. 103).1 Nasser introduced an agrarian reform that was widely controversial. Egypt in the 1960s was an oligarchic country where landless or people with little land had financial insecurity. The reform redistributed 12% of the countries land. The purpose was to give those people land for the first time in the countrys history. But the wealthy people with large amounts of property were seriously severed. Estates bigger than 190 acres disappeared and individuals were limited to owning a cap of 100 acres of land property. The reform was also aiming to drain the surplus from agriculture land into urban growth and industrialization (Bush, p.1601)[3]. Egypts GDP distribution of land.bmp almost doubled between 1963 and 1970, schools were built at an average of one school per day and the number of people receiving free education rose from 1.3 to 3.4 million. Since the agricultural sector was very poor, this market liberalization strategized a US farm-type model with an agricultural driven capital and export-led growth (Bush p.1064)3. According to the World Bank, â€Å"the agricultural sector is now a fully private sector, operating in a market and export-oriented economy† (World Bank).[4] Egypt has the second largest economy in the Middle East. It has amassed large sectors in the clockworks of its economy, the largest of which is the service sector. The service sector is the fastest growing sector and is responsible for nearly 51 percent of the countrys total GDP. The main constituents of the service sector are banking, trade, tourism and the Suez Canal shipping service. Industry follows as Egypts second largest sector by accounting 32 percent of the total GDP, the rapid growth of this sector has happened thanks to the governments efforts in privatization. Although the public sector accounts for 86 percent of the countrys industry, it has only made 15.4 billion/L.E as opposed to the private sectors 99.7 billion/L.E. The agricultural sector accounts for 14.8 percent of the total GDP and has steadily decreased since the industrial boom in the 1990s (Egypt in the†¦, p.65).[5] As far as the overall GDP growth stands, the private sectors have contributed to more than two-thirds of the total GDP income as opposed to the public ones (Economic Review, p.2).[6] There are about 24.6 million laborers in Egypt; however there is an unemployment rate of about 8.7 percent as of 2009. Of these 24.6 million, 51 percent of them work in the services sector, 17 percent work in the industrial sector and 32 percent work in the agricultural sector. Employment grew at a rate of an average 1.744 percent in the last two decades; sectors mostly responsible for this growth are the industrial, constructional and servicer parts of the economy (Ikram, p.236).[7] Official statistics said that the number of the unemployed in Egypt rose from 112.535 in 1950 to 5 millions in early 2004, meaning that the number of the unemployed increased at a rate of 4000% in the last 54 years, in case of these statistics is authentic. If the successive governments were serious in confronting unemployment, the unemployed rate would not have risen from 1.2% in 1950 to reach 3.4% in 1970, 7.10% in 1986, 11.1% in 1990 and 13% in 2004. The current unemployment rate in Egypt meant that i t exceeded limits, as economic studies agreed that the safe rate of the unemployment in any society should range at 4.3%only (Ikram p.237).7 Egypt produces a wide variety of agricultural products; the animal resources it produces are mainly goats, sheep and cattle, while the planetary resources consist of a wide range of vegetables and fruits, as well as beans, wheat, corn, rice and most importantly cotton. The industrial commodities are a wide range of metals, cement, construction services, hydrocarbons, food processing, pharmaceuticals, and textiles (Ikram, p.96).[8] Egypt has the largest market in the Middle East and the Arab world with a population of 83,000,000. It has a lot of growth potential and financial stability with a stable banking sector and a currency that stood quite well during the financial crisis. The real GDP growth rate has been almost always on the rise since the 1970s, and according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, the GDP growth of Egypt has dropped slightly but still a huge improvement over the rest of the Middle East, or the rest of the world which since the crisis have taken the turn for the worse.[9] Poverty has always been the main problem for developing countries. Poverty is globally measured with a number of things, mainly the consumption of edible and non-edible material, the value of the housing asset, income, expenditure on fuel, schools, clothing and other miscellaneous objects. From these statistics a poverty line is drawn under the WHO standards and is given to every country to measure the population under this poverty line. In 1997, there were 15.7 million Egyptians living in poverty, or 26.5 percent. It has slightly dropped in 2005 to be approximately 20 percent of the total population which is still absurdly high (Datt, p.208).[10] Lets take the 1990s poverty trend as an example. The urban versus the rural poverty trends are quite interesting, although the number of poor people has definitely increased, the Rural parts of Egypt have decreased as opposed to the major increase in the Urban areas. This could be explained by the following method, the higher unemployment rate in the urban as opposed to the rural which started from the decrease of the agricultural sector and the rise of the industrial one in the rural and urban parts respectively (p.62).[11] Concerning poverty, The World Bank report in 2001 indicated that 52% of the Egyptians were living with less than two dollars daily (p.63).11 Egypts legal system is found on two different grounds, civil and Islamic law concepts with some Western and European influences of law. The system is a bit complex and sometimes bureaucratic and thus ineffective. While the current administration is aware of the importance of foreign and non-foreign investments, this will be an issue if a lesser business friendly government comes to power. The court consists of three levels, a summary and a primary appeal, and the cassation court, besides those are another system of courts that deal with special cases such as the administrative court and the Supreme Constitutional court. The delays somewhat of the commercial cases take a long while to conclude, taking nearly five years. The unresponsive commercial court is a disadvantage to the foreign investors and the whole private sector. The legal system provides moderate protection for property, although buying real estate can be lengthy, confusing and highly complex. Hernando de Soto calculated that in the year 2000, the process in which one wishes to register a piece of desert land takes between 6 to 14 years to complete. However, the government has taken procedures to encourage private investment. By reducing the costs of property registration from 12 percent of the value of the bought property to 3 percent, and introducing a flat fee of only 1,000 LE per contract, it is focusing on a private reform process. There is no restriction to foreigners owning a non-agricultural real estate. Foreigners have the right to establish private investments in the country and engage in the economy (p.39)[12] Corruption in the low-level is widespread in Egypt. Egypt has scored an unimpressive 2.8 out of 10 in the Transparency Internationals 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index setting it number 115 in the corruption/country ranking. Although there are no reports of this corruption affecting foreign investors, it has significantly affected local private sectors. During Mubaraks ruling, the development rate dropped 2% currently against 4.6% two years ago. Depression dominated the Egyptian markets while citizens purchase ability decreased. The interest rate problem led to the retreat of the Egyptian pound against the dollar. Competition increased between local products and those imported ones in addition to the few foreign investments in the country. The UNCTAD report on the international investment reported that the foreign investment decreased in Egypt from $600 million to only $200 millions. Egypt was one of the most developing countries that were able to attract investment in the 1980s.[13 ] According to the BMI, â€Å"Egypt faces substantial challenges over the coming decade, but as long as the prevailing economic policies remain broadly in place, the future looks bright† (p.24)[14]. Since the government of Ahmed Nazif, the outlook of the Egyptian economy is improving from its former state. The administration of Nazif has lowered taxes, made foreign investments easier and improved the business environment overall. Egypt will get boosted by the energy sector in particular, although the oil exportation wont last long, Natural gas production is the main aim to be the countrys leading energy export. Analysts suggest that production will rise from 55bcm to 106bcm in 2019. The government is currently targeting 1,295bn worth of investment of which only 15% will be state-controlled investments while the rest is up to the private and foreign investors. And according to the privatization reforms, it doesnt seem to be a hard target to hit (p.25).14 Not only that, but the GDP per capita, which is a very good sign of the countrys economy, is approximated to double becoming 5,538 USD by 2018. The Egyptian government continues to look broadly pro-business, although this is yet to reduce poverty levels, and the un-amusing perceptions of corruption, it will continue to make some of its policies unpopular. However, if Gamal Mubarak and the technocrat government he reportedly supports remain in place, then the private sector and banking system should continue to flourish (p.2).[15] [1] El Ashkar, Ahmed. The Islamic business enterprise. Taylor Francis, 1987. [2] Ignacy Sachs, â€Å"International journal of political economy† vol. 38, no. no. 3 (Fall 2009): 5-21. [3] Bush, Ray. Politics, Power and Poverty: twenty years of agricultural reform and market liberalization in Egypt. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 8, 2007, pp 1599 1615. [4] World Bank, Arab Republic of Egypt Toward Agricultural Competitiveness in the 21st Century. [5] Egypt in the global economy: strategic choices for savings, investments, and long-term growth. The World Bank, 1998. [6] Economic Review. Vol. 49. 3. Central Bank of Egypt, 2008. [7] Ikram, Khalid. The Egyptian Economy, 1952-2000: Performance, Policies, and Issues. Vol. 1. Illustrated. Routledge. [8] Ikram, Khalid. The Egyptian Economy: Performance, Policies, and Issues. Vol. 1. Illustrated. Routledge. [9] Montly report April 2009. The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. www.eiu.com. [10] Datt, Gaurav. A profile of povery in Egypt. African Development Bank 2001, Blackwell Publishers. [11] Egypts Social and Structural Review, Document of the World Bank June 2001. [12] Chapter 5: Business Environment, Business Monitor International Ltd Egypt Q3 2009. [13] Kligaard, R. 1998. International cooperation against corruption Finance and Development [14] Chapter 3: Business Forecast, Business Monitor International Ltd Egypt Q3 2009. [15] Financial Reforms Continue to boost growth. Middle east monitor October 2009.

Nicholas Ferrar :: essays research papers fc

Nicholas Ferrar was assumed to be born in 1592. I have found that his most probable birth date was in February of 1593. This is due to the usual calendar confusion: England was not at that time using the new calendar adopted in October 1582. It was 1593 according to our modern calendar, but at the time the new year in England began on the following March 25th. Nicholas Ferrar was one of the more interesting figures in English history. His family was quite wealthy and were heavily involved in the Virginia Company, which had a Royal Charter for the plantation of Virginia. People like Sir Walter Raleigh were often visitors to the family home in London. Ferrars’ niece was named Virginia, the first known use of this name. Ferrar studied at Cambridge and would have gone further with his studies but the damp air of the fens was bad for his health and he traveled to Europe, spending time in the warmer climate of Italy. On his return to England he found his family had fared badly. His brother John had become over extended financially and the Virginia Company was in danger of loosing its charter. Nicholas dedicated himself to saving the family fortune and was successful. He served for a short time as Member of Parliament, where he tried to promote the cause for the Virginia Company. His efforts were in vain for the company lost their charter anyway. Nicholas is given credit for founding a Christian community called the English Protestant Nunnery at Little Gidding in Huntingdonshire, England. After Ferrar was ordained as a deacon, he retired and started his little community. Ferrar was given help and support with his semi-religious community by John Collet, as well as Collet’s wife and fourteen children. They devoted themselves to a life of prayer, fasting and almsgiving (Matthew 6:2,5,16). The community was founded in 1626, when Nicholas was 34 years old. Banning together, they restored an abandoned church that was being used as a barn. Being of wealthy decent, Ferrar purchased the manor of Little Gidding, a village which had been discarded since the Black Death (a major outbreak of the bubonic plague in the 14th century), a few miles off the Great North Road, and probably recommended by John Williams, Bishop of Lincoln whose palace was in the nearby village of Buckden. About thirty people along with Mary Ferrar (Ferrars’ mother) moved into the manor house.

Change management: the implications of self-interest on organizational change

Introduction Organizations in the modern business environment face rapid change driven by globalization and continuous technological innovation. To adapt to this rapid change and to be successful in enhancing organizational performance in this environment, an effective approach is required to facilitate the transitioning of individuals, teams and organizations to a desired future state. A structured approach enabling organizational change would ensure smooth change and successful implementation in the pursuit of lasting benefits (Bennis, 2000). Despite this need, efforts towards organizational change often run into some form of human resistance due primarily to the diverse ways in which individuals and groups act in response to change. However rational or positive, change often causes some form of emotional turmoil and involves perceptions of loss and uncertainty (Beitler, 2005). Kotter and Schlesinger (1979; 451) identify four common reasons people resist change including: †¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"a desire not to lose something of value (parochial self-interest), a misunderstanding of the change and its implications, a belief that the change does not make sense for the organization, and a low tolerance for change.† Self-interest is a major reason for resistance within organizations with people focusing on their own best interest and not those of the entire organization. This paper explores the effect of self-interest in change management evaluating the view that this factor necessitates the adoption of pluralism in organizations with regard to management styles and approaches, organizational design, culture, and decision-making. Also evaluated is the view that although self-interest undermines the concept of â€Å"shared organizational vision,† it is essential to the comprehension of the nature of resistance to change and how that resistance might be managed. This is achieved through an in-depth analysis evaluating organizational context, culture as well as employee beha viour and attitudes which are linked to potential resistance. It contributes to the understanding and application of change management processes and how transformational change can be sustained towards enhanced organizational performance. Parochial self-interest Despite potential positive outcomes, it is nearly always the case that change is resisted. A degree of resistance is normal and acceptable given that change and its attendant process is often disruptive and stressful (Lawson and Price, 2003). A degree of scepticism can also be healthy especially when there are actual or perceived weaknesses in the change proposed, which need to be addressed for the change to have desired positive outcomes (Frese and Fay, 2001). However, resistance in any form and from whatever cause impedes the achievement of business objectives which form the essence of the pursuit and effective management of organizational change (Bennis, 2000). It is a widely held opinion that humans are born with self-interest as an innate tendency and their primary motive, which underlies their outwardly evident behaviour, is to safeguard and to improve these interests (Miller, 1999). This tendency is often automatic, habitual and is in most cases exercised without conscious tho ught (Mansbridge, 1990; Miller, 1999). Self-interest is, therefore, part of normal human nature inherent in our being with every individual having the propensity to narrowly focus on their own best interest and self-preservation before that of others including the organization. Self-interest concerns individual regard for the implications of change for themselves linked to a desire not to lose something of value. In the context of organizational change, this concern and regard for self often causes individuals to resist changes or alterations, particularly if there are suspicions or negative perceptions regarding the changes or circumstances (van Dam et al, 2008). Strong resistance to change is however often rooted in feelings that are historically reinforced and deeply conditioned, established ways, procedures, or methods which could be subject to disruption through the change (Battilana and Casciaro, 2013). Resistance could also result from the individual’s perception of a particular situation, as well as their levels of tolerance for change which could be linked to other causes of resistance such as inadequate information and/or understanding of the necessity and implications of the change; adequate skills development and training; trust and a sense of security; and overall employee relations in organization settings (Zander, 1950; Beitler, 2005). However, in some cases, self-interest has negative connotations of greed and selfishness in the context in which such self-concern goes against the interests of others or widely accepted moral values (Miller, 1999; Rocha and Ghoshal, 2006). In this case, an individual acts to safeguard individual benefits and/or to enhance gain without regard to the impact and effect of their decisions and actions on others including the interests and objectives of the organization. In the exploration of the nature of self-interest and its implications in the context of organizational change, this paper reviews two theoreti cal viewpoints applicable to this focus. These include the rational-economic view which is discussed alongside complementary theories, such as the bureaucratic-hierarchy organizational theory and the neo-institutional economic theory; and the humanistic view, in which the communitarian and collaboration theories are addressed. These orientations reflect a shift in regard for human nature and behaviour from the traditional narrow definition of the rational, egocentric individual to a greater recognition of capacity for other-orientation and willingness of individuals for collaborative action. Theoretical context In neoclassical economics under the capitalist system, the business environment is portrayed in a mechanistic nature with businesses portrayed as ‘machines’ serving primarily for profit maximization subject to iron laws of competition (Mahoney, 2005). This linguistic scheme tends to ignore reality and focuses strictly on mathematical grammar which ideally, albeit not factually, replaces human judgment with algorithms (Rubinstein, 2006). It does not anticipate challenges regarding the human component of organizations, assuming it to be among essential factors of production. However, the human component in business is significant and cannot be ignored or eliminated in the conduct of economic activities; being an essential space through which individual participants exercise responsibility (Sen, 2002; Harder et al, 2004). Businesses in the modern world have to grapple with the human resource component, given the rapidly changing nature of business and greater flexibility an d freedoms of employees participating in production. A central concern in the study of organizational behaviour is how to get employees to contribute high levels of effort and performance to their organization’s collective interests (Mahoney and McGahan. 2007). It entails the pursuit of mechanisms through which to achieve greater alignment between the self and the collective interest (Lawson and Price, 2003; van Dam et al, 2008) essential for the achievement of enhanced organizational performance and crucial in the modern dynamic business environment particularly in moments of change. On one hand, in the context of neoclassical economics, the practice and study of organizations has been based on the foremost assumption of individuals and organizations as rational actors pursuing their self-interests in an inherently competitive space in which several parties involved strive for scarce resources (Diefenbach, 2007). This is the basis for the rational-economic view which assumes that self and collective interests are essentially in conflict (Zander, 1950). In contrast, the humanistic point of view holds that both interests are not independent of each other, embracing the view that they are compatible (Dierksmeier, 2009). These viewpoints are explored in greater detail. Rational-economic view This view essentially assumes that individuals are independent agents rationally pursuing actions that seek to maximize their own self-interests as a primary motivation for their engagement in economic considerations (Mahoney and McGahan. 2007). This has its basis in descriptions in a set of Theory X assumptions regarding human nature described by McGregor (1960) which are premised on the view that employees are naturally lazy and harbour a dislike for work. Individuals are thus reluctant to contribute to the objectives of the organizations, pursuing only money and security. The objective of organizations, then, is to control individual behaviour through rational and efficient organizational structures and processes which ensure consistency with organizational goals and objectives such as stability, efficiency and productivity (Sen, 2002; Dierksmeier, 2009). In this view, organizational design, administrative structure and management approaches adhere to bureaucratic-hierarchical for m. The design of tasks follows principles of division of labour and efficiency maximization pegged on classical economics (Diefenbach, 2007). Control is achieved through systems of authority in the structure, written rules and regulations, punishment and coercion for deviants, as well as incentives such as career advancement and compensation for compliance (Mahoney, 2005). Recent emergence of neo-institutional or organizational economics applying rational-economic assumptions to the analysis of organizations has gained in popularity. This approach relaxes the narrow assumptions of rational economics and departs from the simplistic and negative view of the nature of humans (Sen, 2002; Mahoney and McGahan, 2007). The underlying assumption that humans are rational in intent, self-interest and readily opportunistic is retained though emphasis is made on the assumption of bounded rationality (Rubinstein, 2006; Thomas and Hardy 2011). Neo-institutional approaches, in their various constit uent theories, are premised on the perspective of ready belief that individuals are likely to seek avoidance, to withhold effort, or to act deviousness in pursuit of their own interests (Diefenbach, 2007; Folger and Salvador, 2008). Hence, self-interest is seen to be in conflict with collective interests with the former taking precedence in determining individual decisions and actions. With a basis on these assumptions, agency theorists who argue for control of agents (i.e. employees) by the principal (i.e. manager) affirm the need to adopt mechanisms for incentive, monitoring and control to align the conflicting interests and to prevent agents from pursuing their individual self-interest without regard to organizational goals (Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979). Proponents attempting to solve problems associated with collective action advocate the use of mechanisms to distinguish individual contribution (or lack thereof) which enable incentive or sanction mechanisms (Diefenbach, 2007). This perspective does not consider collective action and collaborative effort in the organizational context as feasible instead promoting greater control and authoritative hierarchical approaches. In its core assumptions, humans are regarded as rational and readily opportunistic making the joint pursuit of a shared organizational vision in organizational settings untenable. In disregard of collective (or organizational) interest, individuals are likely to shirk, withhold effort, and act in devious ways with their self-interest taking precedence and determining their decisions and actions. In this case, pluralism, which entails a bargaining process among diverse and sometimes competing interests in the attempt to maximize the goals of all involved cannot be realized. It is ineffective in organizational settings involving diverse and varied individual interests at play. Despite its significant influence, this perspective has been subject of various criticisms. Its control mechanisms a re deemed to hinder flexibility and responsiveness reducing employee morale, creativity and satisfaction (Frese and Fay 2001; Folger and Salvador, 2008). Its primary emphasis on external control mechanisms and monetary incentives is seen to reinforce and foster negative egocentric behaviour locking out collaborative behaviour essential for the advancement of the organization’s interests (Sen, 2002; Folger and Salvador, 2008; Frese and Fay 2001). The humanistic view This view challenges the core premises of the rational-economic perspective regarding human nature focusing on motivations that underlie human behaviour in a broader orientation (Nguyen, 2000; Lawson and Price, 2003). It is premised on a contrasting set of Theory Y assumptions also described by McGregor (1960) contrasting those of Theory X. These capture the essence of the humanistic perspective including the notion that individuals will to be self-directed, to work hard, and to assume responsibility (Nguyen, 2000; Dierksmeier, 2009). Unlike the earlier approach focused on lower order survival and security needs, such assumptions serve to create more humanistic organizations which endeavour to provide employees with greater opportunity to pursue their higher order needs for self-esteem and self-actualization (Rocha and Ghoshal, 2006; Harder et al, 2004). This view is compatible with the communitarian view which sees humans as multifarious and consequently cannot be limited to concept s such as egocentric, rational and pursuing only their self-interests, not even when regarding their economic transactions (Frese and Fay 2001). Communitarians posit instead that individuals are at the same time rational and social agents, pursuing both concerns of self and moral values of community. In their view, people want and endeavour to be part of and to identify with something larger than themselves, a group or community, and to contribute to some collective good. An ability of human beings to have and to express sympathy for others and to demonstrate commitment to other-oriented values and principles is consistent with this perspective (Nguyen, 2000). Incidentally, in instances when self-interests are in conflict with moral values and commitments in a social setting, the latter in communitarian theory, often supersedes the former as the basis for individual decision making (Mansbridge, 1990; Folger and Salvador, 2008). The communitarian perspective generally advocates for i nvolvement and participation, as well as engagement in civic, collective, and social processes and activities to encourage social and moral behaviour among individuals (Lively, 1978; Battilana and Casciaro, 2013). This backs up the premise that the use of economic incentives and factors that are intrinsically motivational can foster greater alignment between self- and collective interests resulting in an internalized moral commitment to collective good rather than one which is induced or incentivized (Lawson and Price, 2003). This perspective can also be subsumed under the collaboration theory which is of the general belief that individuals have social-moral potential for the pursuit of collective interests and thus are collaborative in nature (Harder et al, 2004; Rubinstein, 2006). Proponents of this perspective have suggested that organization based on the rational-economic perspective is insufficient and incapacitated in the modern dynamic, information-based society linked in net worked systems (Mahoney and McGahan. 2007). Others also posit that there are a number of positive benefits that could accrue from organizational structures, management approaches and incentive mechanisms consistent with collaborative assumptions. These include: increasing positive behaviour due to organizational citizenship and belonging (Battilana and Casciaro, 2013); enhancing willingness and motivation to perform; facilitating high levels of morale and creativity (Frese and Fay 2001); improving the quality of team-based action and work; support of win-win approaches to resolution of problems; besides enabling greater systemic coordination (van Dam et al, 2008).Communitarianism and the collaboration theory support and front the humanistic idea that there can be significant benefits for organizations from design features and management practices oriented towards shared power with employees through increased opportunities for co-leadership, autonomy, empowerment, self-management and participation. Collaboration theory is also premised on the view that due to the interdependence of an organization’s constituent parts, there is no inherent conflict between individual self-interest and the organization’s collective interest (Lively, 1978). Research on organizational culture, for instance, has shown that organizational effectiveness can be enhanced when employees are bound together by shared values, beliefs and practices, in their natural inclination to protect and advance collective interest (Lively, 1978; Battilana and Casciaro, 2013). The collaboration-oriented approach advocates for the replacement of traditional principal-agent relations and hierarchical authority serving to control and to direct employees by a pluralist stewardship approach to management. This aims to meet the needs of various stakeholders while serving the interests of the entire organization (Lively, 1978). This view and orientation favours pluralism given that individuals in the organizational context, with diverse and sometimes competing interests, are considered to have the capacity to co-exist and to achieve democratic equilibrium essential for the obtaining of a win-win compromise. This compromise and cooperation is essential for the change process and the attainment of enhanced performance. Accordingly, self-interest is not a hindrance in the pursuit of a share organizational vision given the potential for individuals to have shared values, beliefs, and practices, and a natural inclination to protect and to advance collective interest. Such a shared vision can be attained through the pursuit of a stewardship approach to management. These recommendations are however criticized for their optimism with regard to moral values, trust and willingness to contribute and to collaborate. This optimism is deemed by sceptics as underestimating the potential pervasiveness of self-interest, the strengths of existing power relations, and the risks of democracy i n the establishment of business relations; factors which necessitate the pursuit of greater managerial/principal control and direction (Folger and Salvador, 2008). The need for greater focus on self-interest In organizational settings, various individuals and different personalities are engaged and interact each with their own priorities and motivations. Behind the various economic facts pursued by organization in their operations are free human beings (McGregor, 1960). Unlike unalterable laws of nature, structures of economic behaviour are influenced by notions and ideals of these interacting individuals that are engaged in it (Frese and Fay 2001). Time and again throughout history, it has been shown that economic behaviour changes with alterations in human attitudes eroding various economic laws (McGregor, 1960; Harder et al, 2004). The individual freedom and ideas about its responsible use plays an eminent role in the economy and if directed and employed appropriately can have significant impact in furtherance of shared organizational vision and objectives. These freedoms and ideas and their individual application in various contexts cannot be conceptualized by abstract methods, predi cted or computed (Nguyen, 2000). Unlike physical systems, human beings form theories about their contexts and act, not simply driven by material causes as often assumed by economic theory, but upon their personal interpretations of the world (Lively, 1978; Dierksmeier, 2009). In the context of organizations and in everyday life, resistance is not a single set of behaviours employees exhibit in situations such as when change is instituted. It comprises various reactions, sometimes unconscious, to forces acting on individuals or groups in a particular environment and context (Thomas and Hardy 2011). Reality in business in the organizational context therefore requires â€Å"messy† procedures and qualitative assessments which result from unpredictable democratic as opposed to technocratic decision-making procedures (van Dam et al, 2008; Thompson and Martin, 2010). There can therefore hardly be a singular effective method or approach to the management of resistance as it requires that all the diverse concerns and needs be addressed. It is also noteworthy that the common reason leading to resistance such as the desire not to lose something of value, a misunderstanding of the change and its implications, and low tolerance for the change can in some way be tied up to self-interest (Harder et al, 2004). It is therefore imperative to focus on the particular self-interest of the various individuals so as to predict potential causes of the resistance, to create an understanding on the nature of their individual and particular resistance to change, to predict their individual responses to it, and to seek appropriate response to mitigate the concerns or to tackle upcoming issues. The various reactions to the change help to elucidate the effect and actual or potential impact of the change, which might not be evident in a closed hierarchical and controlled command system. Such an approach enables the realization of greater success in the change process as it enables jo int diagnosis of problems, fostering of consensus, development of a shared vision, enhancement of cohesion and revitalization in the path to the new vision, as well as the development of all-inclusive formal policies and enhanced monitoring and adjustment. It thus is not a coercive and an impelled process but one that is inclusive and shared. The more people’s needs are better understood, the better the management of the change process and the better the involvement and participation of affected individuals in the process. It is only through such wide engagement and consensus that any transformational change desired can be effected and sustained. Conclusion Regardless of the many types of change, a critical aspect is an organization’s ability to buy-in its employees to the change. This is the predominant reason why evaluation of the implication of self-interest, particularly the unbridled parochial self-concern, is essential to change management enabling the understanding of the nature of resistance to change and therefore how such resistance might be managed. Such a capability can facilitate the sustenance of transformational change, which enables enhanced organizational performance and consequently, success in the challenging modern business environment. The modern environment, given its attendant dynamism, networked systems and information-based societies, presents a challenge to traditional hierarchical and control approaches to management. This makes pluralist and democratic methods essential for the conduct of business in present day organizations. References Battilana, J., and T., Casciaro, 2013. Overcoming resistance to organizational change: strong ties and affective co-optation (Report). Management Science, (4), 819. Bennis, W., 2000. Managing the dream: Reflections on leadership and change. Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Beitler, M., 2005. Overcoming Resistance to Change. Viewed from: www.strategicorganizationalchange.com Dierksmeier, C., 2009. â€Å"A Requisite Journey: From Business Ethics to Economic Philosophy.† In: The Humanistic Management Network (ed.), Humanism in Business, 68–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Folger, R. and R. Salvador, 2008. Is management theory too self-fishJournal of Management, 1127-1151. Frese, M., and D., Fay, 2001. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In: B. M. Staw and R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 23, pp. 133–187). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Harder, J., P., Robertson, and H., Woodward, 2004. The spirit of the new workplace: Breathing life into organizations. Organizational Development Journal, 22(2), 79–103. Kotter, J., and L., Schlesinger, 1979. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review. March-April, 1979 Kotter, J., 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67. Lawson, E., & Price, C., 2003. The psychology of change management. McKinsey Quarterly, (4), 30-41 Lively, C. 1978. Pluralism and consensus. In: P. Birnbaum, G. Parry, J. Lively, (eds.), Democracy, Consensus and Social Contract. London: Sage Publications, 188–202 Mahoney, J., 2005. Economic Foundations of Strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage, Mahoney, J., and A., McGahan. 2007. The field of strategic management within the evolving science of strategic organization. Strategic Organ. 5(1) 79–99. Mansbridge, J., 1990. Beyond self-interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press McGregor, D., 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Miller, D., 1999. The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053–1060 Nguyen, H., 2000. Do humanistic values matterAcademy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, ODC: A1-A6. Rocha, H., and S., Ghoshal, 2006. Beyond self-interest revisited. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 585–619. Rubinstein, A., 2006. A sceptic’s comment on the study of economics. The Economic Journal, March: C1–C9. Sen, A., 2002. Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Thompson, J., and Martin, F., 2010. Strategic Management: Awareness and Change. Cengage Learning EMEA. Diefenbach, T., 2007. The managerialistic ideology of organisational change management. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 20 Issue: 1, pp.126 – 144 Thomas R., and C., Hardy, 2011. Reframing resistance to organizational change. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(3), 322-331. van Dam, K., Oreg, and B., Schyns, 2008. Daily Work Contexts and Resistance to Organisational Change: The Role of Leader–Member Exchange, Development Climate, and Change Process Characteristics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(2), 313-334. Zander, A., 1950. Resistance to change: Its analysis and prevention. Advanced Management, 4(5), 9-11.

Fracking For Oil And Natural Gas - 2240 Words

ASSIGNMENT #13 Fracking for Oil and Natural Gas WRITTEN BY MOSOPE ODUWOLE 250817380 moduwol@uwo.ca Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 CONVENTIONAL AND UNCONVENTIONAL OIL 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 CONVENTIONAL AND UNCONVENTIONAL OIL For centuries, oil and natural gas have been drilled and mined using conventional means, by digging in oil rich sandstones, conventional rocks. Due to the permeability of these rocks, it is easy for the oil and gas to flow to the surface from well bores and be collected for commercial use. But recently, concerns have been raised regarding the over-exploitation of these resources, as various reports show that with the current level of exploration, these reserves will soon be depleted.†¦show more content†¦The difference between these two sources – conventional and unconventional oil – is in the type of rock and depth of drilling, as well as the method used in bringing up the oil and gas. Whereas conventional oil and gas makes use of vertically drilled bores and shallow depths, unconventional oil is drilled at depths farther below in the earth’s surface (depths of up to 10,000 feet have been recorded), by making use of horizontal bores (figure 1). 1.2 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR OIL AND GAS Prior to what is today known as Hydraulic Fracturing or â€Å"Fracking†, in the 19th century, water wells and bores had been fractured using explosives to create high permeability for both water and oil wells. Over the years, the technology has been refined and improved into what is used today for exploration in Shale rocks due to their low-permeability. Fracking is the process of pumping large gallons of water, mixed with sand and a â€Å"cocktail† of chemical compounds into existing crevices of underground oil and gas reserves, under very high pressure, thereby creating fissures and cracks in the rocks and hence improving the porosity and permeability of the rock formation. Figure 1: Conventional Gas reservoirs and Unconventional Gas Reservoirs (Shale Rock) Naturally occurring veins in the rock formations are used in the conventional sources to tap the oil, but in unconventional sources, these veins are either not large enough, or are too far apart and not