role of culture and management development Essays -

This paper offers a new perspective on international al management by examining the role of culture and management development in creating international al expertise, a sense of identity and realizing organizational control. A critical analysis of the culture transmission and management development philosophy and practice of a UK-based transnational reveals how the transmission of culture accomplishes management development objectives, while management development itself serves as a vehicle for the transmission of the desired corporate values. This recursiveness is sustained by a corporate ideology that urges the creation of integrative values and, in turn, is legitimized by the quest for favourable functional and symbolic consequences. Descriptors: management training and development, culture, ideology, functionalism, symbolism. Reconciling headquarter-subsidiary interests while maintaining a distinct identity continues to be a major challenge for multinational firms, hence the think global/act local paradox. For Ghoshal and Bartlett (1990) this problem can be addressed by effectively handling the network of exchange relationships. Other solutions include socialization and the management of expatriates (e.g. Edstrom and Galbraith 1977; Tung 1982); managing relationships between expatriates and host-country subordinates (e.g. Shaw 1990); creating cultural synergy (e.g. Adler 1980); fostering cooperative relationships and developing conflict-resolution mechanisms (e.g. Doz et al. 1981); diffusing 'best proven practices' (e.g. Rosenzweig and Singh 1991); reconciling organizational linkages (e.g. Borys and Jemison 1989) and diffusing and leveraging knowledge (e.g. Gupta and Govindarajan 1991; Kamoche 1996). Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989: 187) found that successful transnational firms used management development 'to build cultural norms, sha pe organizational processes and influence...

History of CREEP and Its Role in the Watergate Scandal

History of CREEP and Its Role in the Watergate Scandal CREEP was the unofficial abbreviation derisively applied to the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, a fundraising organization within the administration of President Richard Nixon. Officially abbreviated CRP, the committee was first organized in late 1970 and opened its Washington, D.C. office in the spring of 1971. Besides its infamous role in the 1972 Watergate scandal, the CRP was found to have employed money laundering and illegal slush funds in its re-election activities on the behalf of President Nixon. During the investigation of the Watergate break-in, it was shown that the CRP had illegally used $500,000 in campaign funds to pay the legal expenses of the five Watergate burglars in return for their promise to protect President Nixon, initially by remaining silent, and by giving false testimony in court - committing perjury - after their eventual indictment. Some key members of CREEP (CRP) included: John N. Mitchell - Campaign DirectorJeb Stuart Magruder - Deputy Campaign ManagerMaurice Stans - Finance ChairmanKenneth H. Dahlberg - Midwest Finance ChairmanFred LaRue - Political OperativeDonald Segretti - Political OperativeJames W. McCord - Security CoordinatorE. Howard Hunt - Campaign ConsultantG. Gordon Liddy - Campaign Member and Finance Counsel Along with the burglars themselves, CRP officials G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt, John N. Mitchell, and other Nixon administration figures were imprisoned over the Watergate break-in and their efforts to cover it up. The CRP was also found to have had ties to the White House Plumbers. Organized on July 24, 1971, the Plumbers was a covert team officially called the White House Special Investigations Unit assigned to prevent leaks of information harmful to President Nixon, such as the Pentagon Papers to the press. Besides bringing shame on the office of President of the United States, the illegal acts of the CRP helped turn a burglary into a political scandal that would bring down an incumbent president and fuel a general mistrust of the federal government festering as part of protests against continued U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.  Ã‚   Rose Marys Baby When the Watergate affair happened, there was no law requiring a campaign to disclose the names of individual donors to political campaigns. As a result, the amount of money and individuals donating that money to CRP was a tightly held secret. In addition, corporations were secretly and illegally donating money to the campaign. Theodore Roosevelt had previously pushed through this prohibition of corporations donating money back in 1907. President Nixons secretary, Rose Mary Woods, kept the list of donors in a locked drawer. Her list famously became known as â€Å"Rose Marys Baby,† a reference to the popular 1968 horror movie titled â€Å"Rosemarys Baby.†   This list was not revealed until Fred Wertheimer, a campaign finance reform supporter forced it into the open through a successful lawsuit. Today, the Rose Mary’s Baby list can be seen at the National Archives where it is held with other Watergate-related material released in 2009. Dirty Tricks and CRP In the Watergate Scandal, political operative Donald Segretti was in charge of the many dirty tricks carried out by the CRP. These acts included the break-in at Daniel Ellsbergs psychiatrists office, the investigation of reporter Daniel Schorr, and plans by Liddy to have newspaper columnist Jack Anderson killed. Daniel Ellsberg had been behind the leak of the Pentagon Papers that had been published by the New York Times. According to Egil Krogh in an op-ed piece in the New York Times printed in 2007, he was charged along with others to carry out a covert operation that would uncover the state of Ellsbergs mental health in order to discredit him by stealing notes about him from Dr. Lewis Fieldings office. According to Krogh, the break in which found nothing about Ellsberg was done in the name of national security. Anderson was also a target due to his exposing classified documents that showed that Nixon was secretly selling arms to Pakistan in their war against India in 1971. Anderson had long been a thorn in Nixons side. The plot to discredit him was widely known after the Watergate scandal erupted. However, the plot to possibly assassinate him was not verified until Hunt confessed on his deathbed. Nixon Resigns In July 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered President Nixon to turn over secretly-recorded White House audio tapes - the Watergate Tapes - containing Nixon’s conversations dealing with the Watergate break-in planning and cover-up. When Nixon first refused to turn over the tapes, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Nixon for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, criminal cover-up and several violations of the Constitution. At last, on August 5, 1974, President Nixon released the tapes, proving his complicity in the Watergate break-in and cover-up. Aware that his impeachment was almost certain, Nixon resigned on August 8 and left office the following day. Finally, on August 5, Nixon released the tapes, which provided undeniable evidence of his complicity in the Watergate crimes. In the face of almost certain impeachment by Congress, Nixon resigned in disgrace on August 8 and left office the following day. Just days after he was sworn in as president, Vice President Gerald Ford - who had no desire to run for president himself - granted Nixon a presidential pardon for any crimes he had committed while in office.

Discuss why and in what ways young people have been treated Essay - 1

Discuss why and in what ways young people have been treated differently in the criminal justice system - Essay Example Scholars have casted doubts on the effectiveness of the UK main criminal system in achieving positive results with the youths and children. The overall opinion is that the main criminal justice system is detrimental to the well-being of the youth going through it (Hill, Lockyer and Stone, 2007). Currently, criminal liability in the UK starts at the age of ten years (Davis, Croall and Tyer, 2010). Offenders between the age of ten and seventeen years are usually taken to Youth Courts for their cases to be heard and determined. However, if the offences committed are serious offences, for example armed robbery, murder and rape, then the perpetrators are prosecuted in Crown Courts regardless of their age provided they can assume criminal liability (Cavalino, Dignan and Mair, 2013). The UK National Audit Office advocates for all children and young people to be treated differently from how adults are treated. It advocates for the Youth Justice System since it manages to strike the unique balance between the interests of the young person and those of the community. It formulates measures that ensure early intervention, and taking proactive measures as opposed to reactive ones towards criminality (Duckley and Loader, 2012). It also institutes restorative justice measures as opposed to retributive ones used by the main criminal justice system, administers proper punishment and provides the necessary support to aid the youth and children in their rehabilitation process (Smith, 2013). This paper investigates why children and young offenders are treated differently in the UK criminal justice system and the ways in which these differences manifest themselves. To achieve this, the paper starts by listing the reasons why youth engage in crimes and develop an understanding of whether they should be accorded special treatment. The paper then discusses the models of