Discuss the difference between leadership and management in nursing an Essay

Discuss the difference between leadership and management in nursing an prioritizing and managing client care - Essay Example ts essence involves gathering people from different domains and motivating them to achieve organizational goals through knowledge sharing and expertise. Specifically, a leader is one who lends a helping hand to those who are not able to realize their potential and go for their aims. In nursing, while the staff nurse is the leader to entry level nurses, the latter are leaders to ultimate clients. Management takes on a more individualized form when nursing is talked of. This is so because in nursing, client care is to be accomplished which is the duty of every single nurse and as such, nurses are required to have the competencies of time management, communication skills and other management skills of planning, organizing and others. In this essence, management in nursing involves judicious and critical use of scare resources optimally for the benefit of the client and the organization. Leadership and management are used synonymously most of the times. However, the two carry different meanings in nursing parlance. In terms of client care management, entry level nurses are equipped with expertise, experience and knowledge which provide guidelines for them to act as client care managers. On the other hand, awareness of organizational policies, protocols and regulations encourage in them the personality of a leader whereby they are able to direct their followers and align their individual goals with that of organizational goals. During entry level, nurses are required to take care of the clients directly through observations and careful usage of the available resources. They have to manage the aspects if time, shifts, materials, supervision and services for clients which are not commanded as in case of passive nursing (Richardson et al. 2007). Thus, they act in the role of decision makers for cost effective use of resources without feeling overburdened and not letting the client feel unobserved. This demonstrates the management skills adopted by nurses in delivering

McDonaldization Essay examples -- essays research papers

McDonaldization About seven months ago, I met an American guy who had arrived at New Zealand just a few days before. While exchanging our sentiments (I am from Japan) on New Zealand and its culture, the guy told me how he was surprised to see the country is so Americanised, mentioning McDonald’s as one of the examples. Now, in a different sense, this was surprising to me, too. I had never had the idea that having McDonald’s is being Americanised. In fact, McDonald’s is nearly everywhere in the world so that many people think it has already become part of their own cultures. But then the question arises: How did this come to be the case? Here is a brief outline of its history (based on Hebert, 1997; McDonald’s Corp., 1997; Mclennan, 1996). History In 1937, McDonald’s was founded as a small local restaurant by two brothers, Maurice and Richard McDonald in Pasadena, California. In 1948, the brothers then converted their barbecue drive-in with car hops into limited-menu, self-service drive-in, in San Bernardino, California - the first advent of quick service restaurant industry. It is in April 1955, however, that the real ‘McDonald’s Corporation’ launched, by a salesman called Ray Kroc, who gained exclusive US franchising rights from the brothers. Starting with Des Plaines, Illinois, McDonald’s rapidly extended its outlets first over the Chicago area, then the US and eventually all over the world, including two largest restaurants in Moscow (1990) and Beijing (1992), both with 700 seats. There are currently over 21,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries (and about 100 in New Zealand), and the 1996 year-end systemwide sales reached 31.812 billion dollars, 59 percent of which came from the outside of the US. McDonaldization The worldwide business of McDonald’s is not just a globalisation of its economy. In his book, ‘The McDonaldization of Society,’ the American sociologist Dr. George Ritzer (1993, cited by Allan, 1997) contends that it also represents the process of rationalisation - â€Å"... the master concept of Max Weber’s analysis of modern capitalism, referring to a variety of related processes by which every aspect of human action became subject to calculation, measurement and control† (Abercrombie, Hill & Turner, 1988, p.902, cited by Allan, 1997). According to Ritzer, McDonaldization can be understood in terms of the following aspects: (1) Eff... ...t Since I am not a sociology-major student, my understanding of McDonaldization may not be accurate, and I certainly do not have a clue on whether such phenomena are good or bad. Still, the point I want to make here is clear: Our societies are increasingly reigned by global standards, which profoundly affect the way we think, process information, and interact with others. (Yes, I know this is a kind of clichà © in psychology.) Without doubt, McDonald’s and its ideas define part of our lives, and across cultures, we definitely share certain commonalities, both materially and psychologically. The only concern that remains, however, is the fact that the standardisation is typically based on the fashion preferred by those who are socially affluent or culturally dominant. In this regard, the same is true for the ‘internet’ system. Surely, this technology is a revolutionary tool that not only removes boundaries from the realms of our social interactions, but also pushes further the potential of human cognitive development. Nonetheless, information found on the net is the product of people who have access to computers, with inevitable reflection of their own personal or social viewpoints.

Book Review: International Conflict Resolution Essay

The first chapter of the book talks about the peace-making and de-escalation strategies. It discusses the theoretical approaches of statism, pluralism and populism in reference to the international conflict. The author of the book convinces the reader that effective conflict resolution should make use of convincing power and positive sanctions. Therefore, he argues that win-win solutions are achievable in international conflict. In the second chapter the relation of US and USSR and cases of Middle East are used to observe the de-escalation efforts. The third chapter takes the example of US-USSR and Arab-Israel de-escalation activities to present some chronologies. Four de-escalation patterns are identified using these chronologies: frequency of initiatives, multiple de-escalation initiatives, and activity level of activity among conflicting countries. In chapter four the author explains the reasons of de-escalation activities and its timings. Factors such as domestic situation, international perspective, and associations between conflicting parties are the presented in this chapter. (Conflict Research Consortium Staff, 2010) Chapter five explains the process of initiating the process of negotiation. The author explores different initiatives and tells which ones are more effective for negotiations. The chapter brings into light the factors resulting in negotiations between conflicting parties. Chapter six explores the negotiation process completely. Kriesberg presents the example of US-USSR and Arab-Israel to analyze different negotiated agreements (Mitchell, 1996). Taking into account these examples, the author creates guidelines for effective negotiations. In chapter seven the author describes the consequences of negotiations. It identifies the effective negotiations leading to long-term de-escalation efforts. Chapter eights draws on the conclusion of peace making efforts. With the help of his findings, he concludes the way in which some countries improve their relations and others still remain conflicted. The last chapter analyzes the impacts of conflicts between nations. The author explains the cost that the countries have to bear and presents policies. In the end, the author comes up with the relationship between peace-making and de-escalation (Conflict Research Consortium Staff, 2010). This book is a comprehensive study of international conflict de-escalation process. With the use of chronologies and tables, the author makes the study more meaningful and easy to understand. It contributes to the study of international relations by presenting a conflict resolution perspective. The book addresses the issue which needs future consideration. Kriesberg’s work lacks theoretical implication but it is practical. International conflict resolution is pioneered in this work and brought it into consideration. The author presents his idea in a persuasive way and explains easily why some inflicts are protracted. The book provides some useful concepts to resolve conflicts and peace-making policies (Simon, 1994). However, book limits itself in providing propositions about the irreversible and complex processes. It raises some important issues like what are the conditions that result in de-escalation initiatives? In what conditions these initiatives leads to negotiations? And finally, how these negotiations results in agreements? The author is successfully able to answer these questions in an effective way (Holsti, 1993). Strengths and Weaknesses of the Book The book is a well organized and well-written by the author. It provides sound understanding of the arguments presented by the author. The unique feature of this book is that the author is able to identify the impacts of agreements. He is able to put forward the questions that are critical to international relations and are helpful in peace-making agreements. However, the methodology adopted in evaluating these questions is off-putting but comes up with some effective conclusions and future policies. Moreover, Kriesberg is not able to justify the causes of failed negotiations and some successful initiatives (Holsti, 1993). Hence, the book faces some validity issues. The analysis throughout the book is enriched by historical references and material representing opportunities and constraints, both in international and domestic context. The author emphasizes that good will and the positive attitude of the people is critical to negotiations. It encourages them and motivates them to work in the right direction and reaching some agreements. Therefore, the book is less controversial and is able to present a broader and positive view of the author. Another advantage of this book is that it provides references according to the context that helps in the better understanding of the arguments and provides the author an easy way to justify his reasoning. The historical material enhances the validity of the content presented in the book. The approach adopted by the author is to provide long lasting solutions to the problems, which is a more practical approach. Kriesberg in this book is able to provide approaches that are complete in nature as many authors have been providing approaches that do contribute a lot but are incomplete. Kriesberg has clearly presented the strengths and weaknesses of the concepts and approaches that he has used in the book. However, due to the use of just two major conflicts, the issue of comparison arises. The drawback of the book is that the language used in the book is difficult to understand by the reader, however, the content of the book is highly informative, providing insight into the subject. By dividing the book into number of chapters, the book is presented in a proper flow that makes the understanding much easier.

What Did the Ancient Egyptians Call Egypt

Who knew that Egypt wasnt really called Egypt in its heyday? In fact, it didn’t receive that name until the archaic Greek era. Its All Greek to the Egyptians In The Odyssey, Homer used â€Å"Aegyptus† to refer to the land of Egypt, meaning it was in use by the eighth century B.C. Victorian sources suggested Aegyptus a corruption of Hwt-ka-Ptah (Ha-ka-Ptah), â€Å"home of the soul of Ptah.† That was the Egyptian name for the city of Memphis, where Ptah, the potter-creator god, was chief deity. But there was a fellow named Aegyptus who plays a big role here, too. According to Pseudo-Apollodorus in his Library, a line of mythological Greek kings ruled over northern Africa. That false statement gave his people a right to claim another regions rich history. Epaphus, son of Zeus and Io, the woman-turned-cow, â€Å"married Memphis, daughter of Nile, founded and named the city of Memphis after her, and begat a daughter Libya, after whom the region of Libya was called.† Thus, huge swathes of Africa owed their names and livelihoods to the Greeks, or so they said. Descended from this family was another name-inducing man: Aegyptus, who â€Å"subjugated the country of the Melampodes and named it Egypt.† Whether or not the original text of the Library stated he named it after himself up for debate. In Greek, â€Å"Melampodes† means â€Å"black feet,† perhaps because they walked in the rich dark soil of their land, which the annual Nile inundation/flood brought up from the river floor. But the Greeks were far from the first people to notice the black soil of the Land of the Nile. The Duality Dilemma The Egyptians themselves, of course, adored the fertile black dirt brought up from the depths of the Nile. It coated the land along the river with minerals amidst the soil, which allowed them to grow crops.  The people of Egypt called their country â€Å"the Two Lands,† which signifies the way they viewed their home—as a duality. Monarchs frequently used the phrase â€Å"Two Lands† when discussing the realms over which they ruled, especially to stress their roles as unifiers of a large territory. What were these two divisions? It depends on whom you ask. Perhaps the two Egypts were Upper (Southern) and Lower (Northern) Egypt, the way the Egyptians perceived their land to be divided. In fact, pharaohs wore the Double Crown, which symbolically represented the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt by combining crowns from both regions into one big one. Or maybe the twosome referred to the two banks of the River Nile. Egypt was even sometimes known as the Two Banks. The West Bank of the Nile was considered the land of the dead, home to necropolises galore—the life-giving Sun, after all, does set in the west, where Re symbolically â€Å"dies† each evening, only to be reborn in the east the following morning. In contrast to the silence and death of the West Bank, life was personified on the East Bank, where cities were built. Perhaps it is related to the aforementioned Black Land (Kemet), the trip of arable land along the Nile, and the barren deserts of the Red Land. This last option makes a lot of sense, considering that the Egyptians often referred to themselves as â€Å"the people of the Black Land.† â€Å"Kemet† first made its appearance around the Eleventh Dynasty, around the same time as another term, â€Å"The Beloved Land† (ta-mery) did. Perhaps, as scholar Ogden Goelet suggests, these monikers came out of a need to emphasize national unity after the chaos of the First Intermediate Period. To be fair, though, those words often appear in Middle Kingdom literary texts, many of which were probably edited centuries after the fact, so one cannot be sure how often these terms were used during the period of the Middle Kingdom itself. By the end of the Middle Kingdom, though, Kemet seems to have become the official name of Egypt, since pharaohs begin to use it in their titulary. Invaders Epithets In the mid-first millennium B.C., Egypt, often torn apart by internal strife, suffered centuries worth of conquests; this came after the already troublesome invasions of its Libyan neighbors. Each time it was conquered, it received a new name, part of its invaders psychology of subjugation. In this so-called Late Period, the Egyptians fell subject to various peoples. First among these were the Assyrians, who conquered Egypt in 671 B.C. We dont have records indicating if the Assyrians renamed Egypt, but its worth noting that, sixty years later, the Egyptian pharaoh Necho II was honored when the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal gave the formers son, Psammetichus, an Assyrian name and rulership over an Egyptian city. The Persians took power in Egypt after Cambyses II defeated the people of Kemet at the Battle of Pelusium in 525 B.C. The Persians turned Egypt into several provinces of their empire, also known as satrapies, that they called Mudraya. Some scholars have suggested Mudraya was the Persian version of the Akkadian Misir or Musur, a.k.a. Egypt. Interestingly, the Hebrew word for Egypt in the Bible was Mitzrayim, and Misr is now the Arabic word for Egypt. And then the Greeks came...and the rest was history!