Monopoly Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Monopoly - Assignment Example Industries consume approximately 20%. Other than the effects of global warming, there is an emerging trend of water privatization by corporations. The private sector is providing water for profit basis. As a result, there has been a lot of destruction of water reservoirs in the ecosystem (Kalpakian 174). The global water crisis has resulted in tension in countries having a shared water system. Several countries striving for economic growth compete in claiming water sources leading to rivalry. In south Asia, the Ganges and Indus River are causing tension between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (Kalpakian 176). Both Pakistan and India are constructing hydroelectric plant along Kishanganga River. Pakistan is weary that the Indian dams will inhibit adequate water flow to their site. This dispute between Pakistan and India has led to Pakistanis militant killing over 100 Indians. Water is important to both these nations. For Pakistan, the populous country relies on irrigation while India has many hydroelectric projects that are involved in harnessing electricity for industrial use. Moreover, in central Asia, there are also water disputes between Afghanistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan who are fighting for control of the Syr Daria and Amu Daria Rivers. The Nile basin is also on dispute. The other Nile countries want a share of the Nile, which is currently in the control of Sudan and Egypt (Kalpakian 176). The tension arising in several countries because of competition of water poses a challenge. UNESCO advocates for non-confrontation resolution of conflicts. In addition, it advocates for the communal philosophy (Lee 231). This dispute resolution approach encourages the stakeholders of a common water source to come together in managing and development of that source. Mechanisms of conflict resolution regarding the water source are vital too. UNESCO dispute resolution in water conflict advocates for

Self-concept Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Self-concept - Essay Example The casual factors include culture differences, gender differences, and personality differences. This paper looks at the relationship of these factors and their influence in the identity of a person. Self-consent, a construct also referred to as self-construct self-identity or self-perspective determines how an individual person perceives of own self in reference to a number of factors. The environment in which a person lives in by itself is a major determiner of the personality of the person and how the individual perceives own self. The people around a person that forms the society and the community influences how the person conceives personality. The behaviour of a person is likely to be aligned in accordance to the person’s culture and other people’s behaviour. Personally, Culture is probably the most influential factors that determine an individual’s self-consent. Culturally, I am obliged to be self-sufficient and independent. The normative imperative of this notion is that I am required to discover myself early enough to be in a position to be express my personal attributes. The cultural setting has defined the form of interaction that I need to conform to. Memberships of various groups or clubs, relationships with other people and their needs ought to come last in preference to personal needs. The society expects me to conform to the norms of the society, and be part of it. I rarely perceive myself as a part of the society, but rather individually and more separate from the society. Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, personally, I cannot change this belief, but have to conform to it as long as am part of the society. Gender defines who a person is in reference to sexuality. Women and men are classified by their gender. The normality of the society to determine the strength of a person through gender is very influential to that person. A man is more independent than a woman,

Effect of Different Leadership Styles on Organisation

Effect of Different Leadership Styles on Organisation Management summary In this thesis the relationship between the predominant leadership styles in the academic literature, transformational and transactional leadership, and organization citizenship behaviour will be discussed and analyzed. In the transformational leadership   style the leader motivates and inspires followers by gaining their trust and respect. The leader communicates the goals, visions and missions in a clear way and stimulates his followers to go beyond the call of duty. Transactional leadership is based on an exchange relationship between the leader and followers. Followers receive rewards when they perform according to the standards and requirements set by their leader. Organizational citizenship behaviour concerns those voluntary acts performed by   individual employees that are of a discretionary and voluntary nature and contribute to the effectiveness of the organization. However, when organizations exert citizenship pressures on their employees this might have some serious consequences on their workforce. These high levels of pressure to be a good citizen can result in job stress, work-family conflicts, work-leisure conflicts and might even result in quitting intensions among employees. This thesis will also focus on the desirability of OCBs within the organization and the dangers of citizenship pressures. Chapter 1.Introduction to the thesis 1.1 Problem Indication Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) has been a popular subject among several fields of study for the past couple of decades. OCBs are positive, individual and voluntary acts performed by employees which go beyond their job descriptions and are not directly rewarded or monitored (Organ, 1988). According to Katz Kahn (1966) these kinds of behaviour are important to organizations because organizations depend on behaviour of their employees that go further than their job description even though these behaviours are not actively monitored and enforced. Because of the voluntary nature of the positive acts the theory of OCBs seems to be very positive for both the individuals within an organization and the effectiveness of the organization as whole. OCB has been linked with loyalty, obedience, voluntarism, helping behaviours, altruism and other positive traits in many previous studies throughout the years (Bolino, Turnley, Niehoff, 2004; Organ, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, 2006). But recent studies have also investigated the â€Å"darker side† of OCB. The problem lies with the discretionary and voluntary nature of OCB. There are situations in which employees feel like OCB is expected of them, this citizenship pressure can lead to job stress, work conflicts and even quitting intensions (Bolino,Turnley, Gilstrap, Suazo, 2010). The first part of this thesis will go further into the dynamics of OCB and will look at both the positive and negative side of OCB. The second part of this thesis will address the relation between leadership st yles and OCB. Leadership styles are of great influence on the OCBs of employees (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). In the studies of Bass (1985) and Burns (1978)   a distinction has been made between transformational and transactional leadership. These different styles of leadership have different implications on the degree of OCB among the employees (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). 1.2 Problem statement The problem statement of this thesis is formulated in one single question: How do the different styles of leadership influence organizational citizenship behaviour ? 1.3 Research Questions The research questions that are derived from the problem indication are: To what degree is OCB desired within an organization? What is the influence of transactional leadership on OCB? What is the influence of transformational leadership on OCB? 1.4 Methodology The type of research that will be conducted for this thesis is a descriptive research. The thesis will be a literature study which means secondary sources will be gathered and researched (Sekaran, 2008). An analysis of the different variables will be made in order to find the answers to the formulated research questions. The links between the different variables researched in this thesis can be the basis for further empirical research. The main concepts of the research are organizational citizenship behaviour and the transformational (or charismatic) (Yukl, 1999) and transactional leadership types. 1.5 Structure In this thesis the relationship between the two predominant leadership styles and OCB within an organization will be analyzed. The first chapter will get into the dynamics of OCB in order to determine whether or not and to what degree OCB is desirable. This means that both the positive and negative sides of OCB within an organization will be balanced in this chapter. At the end of chapter one the first research question of this thesis will be answered. Chapter two and three will link transformational and transactional leadership with OCB. In these chapters it will become clear how the different styles of leadership stimulate OCB and which leadership style results in the largest amount of OCBs. After these chapters the answer to the problem statement is given in the conclusion. Furthermore, limitations of this research and managerial and academic implications will be discussed. Chapter 2. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour 2.1 Introduction Organizational citizenship behaviour is a topic that has fascinated many researchers and managers for the last couple of decades since Bateman and Organ (1983) were the first to address this topic in 1983. Nowadays in times of economical crises OCB remains an interesting subject, because in a race of the survival of the fittest organizations rely on good citizens to survive. However, recent studies of the past couple of years have reported some negative implications of OCB and have questioned the desirability of OCB (Bolino, Gilstrap, Turnley Suazo, 2010; Korgaard, Meglino, Lester Jeong, 2010; Van Dyne Ellis, 2004). Vardi and Weitz (2003) have reported on the concept of organizational misbehaviour (OMB) as a counterpart to OCB in their studies. In this chapter both the positive and negative implications of OCB and citizenship pressures exerted by the organizations will be discussed.   In order to answer the question whether or not OCB is desirable within an organization the concept of organizational citizenship behaviour has to be explained.. OCB can be defined as â€Å"individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of an organization†, according to the study of Organ (1988, p. 4). OCB is behaviour of a constructive nature by the employee, which is not a part of the formal job description (Organ, 1988). According to Moorman, Blakely and Niehoff (1988) employees will engage in OCBs when they feel that that behaviour is justified by the positive actions of the organization and are consistent with the treatment and commitment of the organization. Employees feel the need to repay the organization for the positive treatment and commitment they receive throughout the relationship (Moorman et al., 1988). Research of Kidder (1998) and Stamper and Van Dyne (2001) argues that employees that have a long-term relationship with a firm perform more OCBs than temporary or part-time workers. 2.2 The sunny side of OCB Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) distinguished thirty forms of citizenship behaviours from the literature on OCB and grouped them in seven dimensions; helping behaviour, sportsmanship, organizational compliance, organizational loyalty, self development, civic virtue and individual initiative. Helping behaviours are voluntary behaviours that help fellow colleagues prevent or solve work related problems. This kind of behaviour includes supporting and cheering for fellow employees and also peacemaking activities when there are times of conflict and struggles between employees (Organ, 1988). Organizational compliance is a form of OCB which regards the following and obeying of organizational procedures and rules by the employees (Borman Motowidlo, 1993). Organizational compliance argues that good citizens follow the rules and procedures of the organization instinctively and precisely, even when they know that they are not being supervised or monitored (Podsakoff et al., 2000).  Ã‚   Podsakoff et al. (2000) state that organizational compliance is a form of OCB even though it is expected from subordinates to act according the rules and regulations of the company, because in many cases employees do not act according these rules and regulations when they know that they are not being observed or monitored. Thus, according to Podsakoff et al. (2000) employees that follow up the rules and regulations very precisely even when they know that they are not being supervised can be viewed as very good organizational citizens. Sportmanship is a type of OCB which describes the process of coping with all the inevitable problems and inconveniences that are bound to happen at work without complaining (Organ, 1990). According to Podsakoff, et al., (2000) good sportsmanship occurs when employees refrain from complaining when other colleagues cause inconveniences for them. ‘Good sports are willing to make personal sacrifices in the interest of the group and do not showcase a negative attitude when things are not going their way. Furthermore, ‘good sports do not get offended when their suggestions and ideas are not followed up by the rest of the employees in their working environment. Individual initiative is regarded as OCB when a person goes that far beyond the expected level of task-related behaviours that these behaviours can be viewed as voluntary (Podsakoff et al., 2000).   When employees engage in individual initiative they showcase extra effort and enthusiasm in order to increase their task performance or the performance of the organization as a whole. They voluntarily come up with new ideas and innovations in order to increase organizational effectiveness and encourage fellow colleagues to act in the same way (Podsakoff, et al., 2000). Organizational loyalty refers to the strong commitment of employees to the organization throughout the good and the bad times (Graham, 1991), defending the organization against threats from the outside and promoting the organization to people outside the organization (Borman Motowidlo, 1997; George Jones 1997). According to the research of Podsakoff et al. (2000) civic virtue(Organ, 1988)means that employees recognize that they are part of a larger whole and they acknowledge and accept the responsibilities for the effective functioning of their organization. The employees actively look out for opportunities and threats in the environment of their organization. They participate actively in the decision making process of the organization and are constantly acting out of the interest of the company while putting their personal interests aside (Podsakoff et al., 2000).   Self development is citizenship behaviour that occurs when employees voluntarily undertake actions in order to learn and improve their skills, knowledge and capabilities (Podsakoff et al., 2000). The study of George and Brief (1992) states that self development might consist of employees participating in advanced training course, employees undertaking actions in order to keep up with the latest developments in their field; or employees might even learn an entirely new set of skills. Self development behaviour is good citizenship behaviour because employees try to improve and increase their personal contributions to the performance and effectiveness of the organization (George Brief, 1992). These seven dimensions of OCB all describe positive acts and contributions from the employees which benefit the organization. According to Organ Konovsky (1989) these combined contributions of individual employees increase organization effectiveness significantly over time. Because of the positive nature of these citizenship behaviours organizations try to stimulate OCBs among their employees. These citizenship pressures lead to higher levels of OCB within the organization, which is essentially favourable for the company (Bolino,Turnley, Gilstrap Suazo, 2010). However, the stimulation of citizenship behaviours can have a negative effect on the employees because the citizenship pressure to please the organization can result in job stress, quitting intensions and work-family and work-leisure conflicts (Bolino et al., 2010; Greenhaus Beutell, 1985; Reich, 2001; Sauter Murphy, 1995). 2.3 The dark side of OCB One could argue that OCB has a lot of positive implications for an organization based on the dimensions described by Podsakoff et al.(2000). Recent studies however have also shed light on the darker side of OCB (Bolino et al.,2010; Korsgaard Meglino, Lester, Jeong,2010; Van Dyne Ellis, 2004; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). Organ (1988) implies that OCB is solely a positive phenomenon within an organization, because of the discretionary and voluntary nature of OCB. Furthermore, Organ (1988, p. 4) argues that â€Å"OCB promotes the effective functioning of an organization†. Vigoda-Gadot (2006, p. 79) concludes from the definition of OCB by Organ (1988) that it implies that â€Å"OCB consists of informal contributions that a participant can choose to make or withhold, without the regard to considerations of sanctions or formal incentives†. However, recent studies have countered the discretionary nature of OCB. Korsgaard et al. (2010, p. 277), argue that OCB is â€Å"based on the norm of reciprocity: the obligation to reciprocate the benefits already received from another (â€Å"paying you back†) and the expected reciprocity that ones actions will stimulate future benefits from another (â€Å"paying me forward†).† Vardi and Weitz (2003) have mentioned the concept of organizational misbehaviour (OMB) in their studies as a counterpart to OCB. Organizational misbehaviour is behaviour of a social nature   that harms the interest of the organization.   According to Vardi and Weitz (2003) there are five types of organizational misbehaviour; intra-personal misbehaviour, inter-personal misbehaviour, property misbehaviour, production misbehaviour and political misbehaviour.   OMB can be viewed as the real dark side of employee behaviours. 2.3.1 Citizenship pressure Citizenship pressure occurs when employees feel the pressure to engage in OCBs because their employer tries to stimulate that behaviour by informal compensation (Bolino,Turnley, Girlstrap Suazo, 2010).Citizenship pressure is a phenomenon that differs from individual to individual and it is of a subjective nature (Bolino, et al.,2010). Employees that are regarded as high-self monitors are more likely to give in to citizenship pressures and engage more in citizenship behaviours, because those employees value their image and the way they are perceived by their co-workers and supervisors (Blakely, Andrews, Fuller, 2003). The study of Bolino et al. (2010) has shown that citizenship pressure leads to higher levels of OCB of employees within an organization. Hence, the studies of Korsgaard, et al.(2010) and Bolino, et al.(2010) question both the discretionary and voluntary nature of OCB. Research has shown that managers do take OCBs into account when evaluating their employees and making other decisions (Podsakoff, et al.,2000) Van Dyne and Ellis (2004) state that with citizenship pressure, behaviour that was once voluntary and discretionary can become an obligation. Van Dyne and Ellis (2004) mention the phenomenon of job creep, this situation occurs when employees constantly feel the pressure to do more than their job actually requires of them. The duties of the employees are slowly increased without official recognition of the organization and in time are expected of the employees (Van Dyne Ellis, 2004). Although citizenship pressure may be a positive phenomenon from an organizations point of view because it leads to more OCB, it also is associated with negative consequences for the employees and their organization (Bolino, et al.,2010). The amounts of job stress experienced by the employees are likely to increase in the case of high levels of citizenship pressures (Bolinio, et al.,2010).   Job stress occurs when employees do not have the capabilities and resources that are needed to fulfil their job requirements. The incapability to fulfil these job demands will lead to negative consequences for the emotional and physical state of the employees who experience high levels of job stress (Sauter Murphy, 1995). According to Bolino, Turnley, Gilstrap, Suazo (2010) employees who experience citizenship pressures to behave as a good citizen of the organization may also feel the pressures at home to be a good partner and parent. This work-family conflict is a role conflict that occurs when the work role demands that are required from an employee are not compatible with the demands of the family (Greenhaus Beutell, 1985).   Work-family conflicts may arise when the partners of the employees have difficulties in understanding why their partner chooses to engage in OCBs that are technically not required of them and are not formally rewarded rather than to spend time with their family (Edwards Rothbard, 2000). Research of Flynn (1996) shows that in a situation of high citizenship pressures employees with less demanding family situations engage in more citizenship behaviours than married employees with more responsibilities towards their families. Another conflict related to citizenship pressure is the work-leisure conflict. This conflict arises when employees experience difficulties in balancing their work demands with their personal life and leisure time (Bolino, et al.,2010). The study of Reich (2001) states that employees who are physically away from their working environment, may still be mentally connected to their job. According to Bolino, et al.(2010) these employees experience a conflict between their desires for free time in their personal lives and the desire to be a good organizational citizen in order to receive the benefits that come with that kind of status. The employees who feel citizenship pressures may not enjoy their free time because they are worrying about the situation and problems at work. Furthermore, they may be troubled by the fact that their co-workers might surpass them in terms of productivity and value for the organization when they enjoy their personal time or they may be experiencing feelings o f guilt because they are not working (Reich, 2001). This may lead to an increasing tendency among employees to keep in contact with their work office, by means of mobile phones, pagers or email, in order to remain available for their colleagues and superiors (Reich, 2001). These types of conflict caused by citizenship pressure, like the work-leisure conflict and the work-family conflict and the phenomenon of job stress, contribute to the job quitting intensions among the employees (Bolino et al.,2010). The dark side of OCB can be accounted to the citizenship pressures exerted by the organization. When an organization pressures   employees to perform citizenship behaviours this can result in negative consequences for the state of mind of the employees (Bolino et al., 2010; Edwards Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus Beutell, 1985; Reich, 2001). This in turn can lead to decreases in productivity and effectiveness for the organization, because employees in a bad state of mind are more likely to leave the organization or work inefficiently (Bolino et al., 2010). 2.4 Desirability of OCB within the organization OCB in its core essence is desirable for organizations because those citizenship behaviours are linked with helping behaviours, loyalty and commitment to the organization, the following of rules and regulations, creativity and innovation and going the extra mile (Podsakoff, et al.,2000) .   These citizenship behaviours are characterized as positive contributions to an organization and its productivity, effectiveness and social climate (Moorman et al., 1988; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, et al.,2000). This makes it difficult for one to argue that citizenship behaviours are not desirable within an organization. However, there is also a darker side to OCB. These negative side effects of OCB occur when the voluntary and discretionary nature of citizenship behaviours is removed because of citizenship pressures exerted by the organization on their employees (Bolino et al.,2010; Korsgaard et al.2010) . Citizenship pressures can result in job stress, work-family conflicts, work-leisure conflicts and eventually in quitting intensions among employees (Bolino et al., 2010; Edwards Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus Beutell, 1985; Reich, 2001).   Effectiveness and productivity of employees decrease when they experience job stress or work-family or work leisure conflicts, which in turn also has a negative influence on the company as a whole (Bolino, et al.,2010). In conclusion, one could argue that citizenship behaviours are a positive and desired phenomenon for an organization when the negative consequences of citizenship pressures exerted by the organization are not taken into account. However, citizenship pressures result in more OCBs among employees and thus organizations are inclined to exert those pressures on their employees (Bolino et al.,2010). Thus, organizations have to balance the positive and negative consequences of citizenship pressures and OCBs in order to maximize   the value of the employees for the company. Because citizenship pressures has different outcomes for each individual employee, the organization and group leaders could benefit from a thorough analysis of their workforce (Bolino et al., 2010). For instance, employees who are considered to be high self-monitors are more likely to engage in citizenship behaviours when they feel citizenship pressure, because they care about how they are being perceived by their co-w orkers and leaders (Blakely et al., 2003) Chapter 3.The transformational and transactional leadership styles 3.1 Introduction Leadership has always been an interesting topic for researchers from different fields. According to Tannenbaum, Weschler and Masarik (1961, p. 24) leadership is: â€Å"interpersonal influence exercised in situations and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals†. According to Wayne, Shore Liden (1997) leadership is important because the exchange between a manager and his follower   is the most important factor in determining employee behaviour. In the literature a distinction has been made by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) between transactional leadership and transformational leadership. Burns (1978) reports that transactional and transformation leadership are complete opposites. Bass (1985), however, argues that transformational leaders may also use transactional leadership behaviours in certain situations. The concepts of transactional and transformational leadership will be explained in this chapter. 3.2 Transactional leadership The study of Bass (1985) shows that transactional leaders make the tasks and responsibilities of the followers clear and also promise the followers compensation for when their tasks are performed according to the standards. According to Deluga (1990) transactional leadership is an exchange process in which rewards and punishments are administered. Transactional leaders exchange financial rewards for productivity or deny rewards when the productivity of the followers is lacking (Bass Riggio, 2006). The relationship between the leader and his followers in a system of transactional leadership is focused on self interest and based on mutual dependency (Lagamarsino Cardona, 2003). Bass (1990) concludes in his research that there are four different types of transactional leadership. Contingent reward: The leader sets up a contract based on performance and rewards, solid performance is compensated with rewards. When goals are met the employees will get recognition for their accomplishments. Contingent reward leader behaviours have shown to have a positive relation with performance and follower attitudes (Avolio, Waldman Einstein, 1988; Waldman, Bass Yammarino, 1990). Laissez-Faire: In this particular form of transactional leadership the leader avoids making decisions and steps away from any responsibilities. The subordinates have to fulfil their tasks on their own. According to Dubinsky, Yammarino, Jolson, Spangler (1995) this type of leader is indifferent, frequently absent,   inattentive and does not influence the workforce. Management by exception (active): The leader actively looks for errors and mistakes in the work process. When the tasks performance of the employees is not on the required level the leader will intervene and he will try to put the employees back on the right track. Management by exception (passive): The leader only undertakes actions when the level of output and requirements and standards are not met by his subordinates. All these types of transactional leadership lack leadership behaviours that motivate employees to be the best they can be for the organization and to go the extra mile for colleagues and superiors. 3.3 Transformational leadership The transformational leadership theory of Bass (1985) states that transformational leadership creates a bond of trust between the leader and followers, motivating employees to achieve beyond expectations. According to Bass (1985) transformational leadership activates employees higher-order needs and lets them act out of the interest of the company. Transformational leaders are able to motivate their followers to the degree that they not only increase their task performance but also engage in OCBs that help the organization to function in an effective way (Smith, Organ, Near, 1983). Transformational leaders motivate their subordinates to come up with creative and innovative for difficult issues within the organization (Bass, 1985). Furthermore, in the transformational leadership style the leaders encourage their followers to go the extra mile for the organization and they reach out to their employees with constructive feedback (Bass, 1985).   Transformational leaders make their mis sions and goals clear to their followers and they convince the followers to act out of interest of the company (Piccolo Colquitt, 2006). Employees who are able to link their own success with that of the company and can identify with the values and goals of the organization are more likely to add value to the organization (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, Fetter, 1990). Bass (1985) states in his research that when a manager acts like a transformational leader he will be perceived as a more satisfying and effective leader than a transactional leader. Furthermore, according to the studies of Bass (1985), employees report that they are more willing to put in extra effort and time for managers who behave as transformational leaders. Bass Avolio (1993) and Pillai (1995) have reported in their studies that there is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and employee satisfaction, and between transformational leadership and in-role behaviours that lead to job performan ce. According to Yukl (1999) transformational leadership can be viewed as the equivalent of charismatic leadership. In their research, Avolio Bass (2002) distinguished four different components of transformational leadership. Idealized influence: The leaders are admired, respected and trusted by their followers. The leaders are seen as examples/ role-models by the followers and the followers are inspired to emulate their actions. The leaders also put their followers interests above their own interest which earns them trust and respect. Idealized influence, or the charismatic dimension of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), is often described as the most important component of transformational leadership (Waldman, Bass, Yammarino, 1990). Charismatic leaders receive respect and trust from their followers, because they create a sense of pride among their followers and communicate clear visions and missions (Bass, 1985).   Inspirational motivation: The leaders motivate their followers by attaching meaning and challenge to their work. The leader shows optimism and enthusiasm which stimulates individual and team spirit among the followers. Individualized consideration: The leaders take the needs and desires of the individual followers into account. The followers receive individual support from their leader in order to grow and develop and achieve higher goals. Intellectual stimulation: The followers are encouraged to be creative and innovative by their leaders. New approaches and new ideas are stimulated in order to get creative solutions to existing problems. Out of the box thinking is rewarded and it is not a shame to make errors. Chapter 4. The influence of transactional and transformational leadership on OCB 4.1 Introduction The predominant style of leadership in an organization has a great influence on the amount and types of OCBs performed by the employees within the organization. Bass (1990) described an experiment in a working area for convicted inmates. In this workplace the inmates had to produce several different types of products for in and outside the prison walls. One group of their supervisors received training in order to become transformational leaders, and the other group received a transactional leadership training. The inmates that were supervised by groups of transformational leaders performed better than those that were supervised by the transactional leaders. Not only did they perform better in the areas of productivity, absence and behaviour, the inmates also engaged in more citizenship behaviours. Furthermore, Bass (1990) states in his research that managers who are viewed as the high performers by their supervisors, also were viewed to be of a more transformational than transactional nature by their followers in a separate survey. In this chapter the relationship between transactional leadership, transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour will be discussed. 4.2 Transactional leadership and OCB The transactional leadership style is based on an exchange relation between leaders and their followers. Employees are rewarded or punished based on whether or not their performance is according to the standards that were set by their transactional supervisors (Bass, 1985; Bass Riggio, 2006; Deluga, 1990). Because transactional leadership is a system of mutual dependency between leaders and followers that is based on self interest (Lagamarsino Cordona, 2003) and primarily an exchange process, transactional leadership leads to a low amount of citizenship behaviours performed by employees. The four different types of transactional leadership (Bass, 1990) do not convince employees to perform the seven dimensions of citizenship behaviour (Podsakoff et al.,2000). In the laissez-faire leadership style the leader avoids making decisions and steps away from his responsibilities. The followers have to do their tasks on their own and there is hardly any communication with the leaders. The leader is frequently absent, inattentive and indifferent and does not influence the workforce (Dubinsky et al.,1995). It is obvious that this type of leader will not stimulate citizenship behaviours among his followers. The leaders who act according to the management by exception style (both passive and active) only intervene when their followers do not meet up with the requirements and standards that are set for them. The employees do no Effect of Different Leadership Styles on Organisation Effect of Different Leadership Styles on Organisation Management summary In this thesis the relationship between the predominant leadership styles in the academic literature, transformational and transactional leadership, and organization citizenship behaviour will be discussed and analyzed. In the transformational leadership   style the leader motivates and inspires followers by gaining their trust and respect. The leader communicates the goals, visions and missions in a clear way and stimulates his followers to go beyond the call of duty. Transactional leadership is based on an exchange relationship between the leader and followers. Followers receive rewards when they perform according to the standards and requirements set by their leader. Organizational citizenship behaviour concerns those voluntary acts performed by   individual employees that are of a discretionary and voluntary nature and contribute to the effectiveness of the organization. However, when organizations exert citizenship pressures on their employees this might have some serious consequences on their workforce. These high levels of pressure to be a good citizen can result in job stress, work-family conflicts, work-leisure conflicts and might even result in quitting intensions among employees. This thesis will also focus on the desirability of OCBs within the organization and the dangers of citizenship pressures. Chapter 1.Introduction to the thesis 1.1 Problem Indication Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) has been a popular subject among several fields of study for the past couple of decades. OCBs are positive, individual and voluntary acts performed by employees which go beyond their job descriptions and are not directly rewarded or monitored (Organ, 1988). According to Katz Kahn (1966) these kinds of behaviour are important to organizations because organizations depend on behaviour of their employees that go further than their job description even though these behaviours are not actively monitored and enforced. Because of the voluntary nature of the positive acts the theory of OCBs seems to be very positive for both the individuals within an organization and the effectiveness of the organization as whole. OCB has been linked with loyalty, obedience, voluntarism, helping behaviours, altruism and other positive traits in many previous studies throughout the years (Bolino, Turnley, Niehoff, 2004; Organ, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, 2006). But recent studies have also investigated the â€Å"darker side† of OCB. The problem lies with the discretionary and voluntary nature of OCB. There are situations in which employees feel like OCB is expected of them, this citizenship pressure can lead to job stress, work conflicts and even quitting intensions (Bolino,Turnley, Gilstrap, Suazo, 2010). The first part of this thesis will go further into the dynamics of OCB and will look at both the positive and negative side of OCB. The second part of this thesis will address the relation between leadership st yles and OCB. Leadership styles are of great influence on the OCBs of employees (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). In the studies of Bass (1985) and Burns (1978)   a distinction has been made between transformational and transactional leadership. These different styles of leadership have different implications on the degree of OCB among the employees (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). 1.2 Problem statement The problem statement of this thesis is formulated in one single question: How do the different styles of leadership influence organizational citizenship behaviour ? 1.3 Research Questions The research questions that are derived from the problem indication are: To what degree is OCB desired within an organization? What is the influence of transactional leadership on OCB? What is the influence of transformational leadership on OCB? 1.4 Methodology The type of research that will be conducted for this thesis is a descriptive research. The thesis will be a literature study which means secondary sources will be gathered and researched (Sekaran, 2008). An analysis of the different variables will be made in order to find the answers to the formulated research questions. The links between the different variables researched in this thesis can be the basis for further empirical research. The main concepts of the research are organizational citizenship behaviour and the transformational (or charismatic) (Yukl, 1999) and transactional leadership types. 1.5 Structure In this thesis the relationship between the two predominant leadership styles and OCB within an organization will be analyzed. The first chapter will get into the dynamics of OCB in order to determine whether or not and to what degree OCB is desirable. This means that both the positive and negative sides of OCB within an organization will be balanced in this chapter. At the end of chapter one the first research question of this thesis will be answered. Chapter two and three will link transformational and transactional leadership with OCB. In these chapters it will become clear how the different styles of leadership stimulate OCB and which leadership style results in the largest amount of OCBs. After these chapters the answer to the problem statement is given in the conclusion. Furthermore, limitations of this research and managerial and academic implications will be discussed. Chapter 2. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour 2.1 Introduction Organizational citizenship behaviour is a topic that has fascinated many researchers and managers for the last couple of decades since Bateman and Organ (1983) were the first to address this topic in 1983. Nowadays in times of economical crises OCB remains an interesting subject, because in a race of the survival of the fittest organizations rely on good citizens to survive. However, recent studies of the past couple of years have reported some negative implications of OCB and have questioned the desirability of OCB (Bolino, Gilstrap, Turnley Suazo, 2010; Korgaard, Meglino, Lester Jeong, 2010; Van Dyne Ellis, 2004). Vardi and Weitz (2003) have reported on the concept of organizational misbehaviour (OMB) as a counterpart to OCB in their studies. In this chapter both the positive and negative implications of OCB and citizenship pressures exerted by the organizations will be discussed.   In order to answer the question whether or not OCB is desirable within an organization the concept of organizational citizenship behaviour has to be explained.. OCB can be defined as â€Å"individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of an organization†, according to the study of Organ (1988, p. 4). OCB is behaviour of a constructive nature by the employee, which is not a part of the formal job description (Organ, 1988). According to Moorman, Blakely and Niehoff (1988) employees will engage in OCBs when they feel that that behaviour is justified by the positive actions of the organization and are consistent with the treatment and commitment of the organization. Employees feel the need to repay the organization for the positive treatment and commitment they receive throughout the relationship (Moorman et al., 1988). Research of Kidder (1998) and Stamper and Van Dyne (2001) argues that employees that have a long-term relationship with a firm perform more OCBs than temporary or part-time workers. 2.2 The sunny side of OCB Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) distinguished thirty forms of citizenship behaviours from the literature on OCB and grouped them in seven dimensions; helping behaviour, sportsmanship, organizational compliance, organizational loyalty, self development, civic virtue and individual initiative. Helping behaviours are voluntary behaviours that help fellow colleagues prevent or solve work related problems. This kind of behaviour includes supporting and cheering for fellow employees and also peacemaking activities when there are times of conflict and struggles between employees (Organ, 1988). Organizational compliance is a form of OCB which regards the following and obeying of organizational procedures and rules by the employees (Borman Motowidlo, 1993). Organizational compliance argues that good citizens follow the rules and procedures of the organization instinctively and precisely, even when they know that they are not being supervised or monitored (Podsakoff et al., 2000).  Ã‚   Podsakoff et al. (2000) state that organizational compliance is a form of OCB even though it is expected from subordinates to act according the rules and regulations of the company, because in many cases employees do not act according these rules and regulations when they know that they are not being observed or monitored. Thus, according to Podsakoff et al. (2000) employees that follow up the rules and regulations very precisely even when they know that they are not being supervised can be viewed as very good organizational citizens. Sportmanship is a type of OCB which describes the process of coping with all the inevitable problems and inconveniences that are bound to happen at work without complaining (Organ, 1990). According to Podsakoff, et al., (2000) good sportsmanship occurs when employees refrain from complaining when other colleagues cause inconveniences for them. ‘Good sports are willing to make personal sacrifices in the interest of the group and do not showcase a negative attitude when things are not going their way. Furthermore, ‘good sports do not get offended when their suggestions and ideas are not followed up by the rest of the employees in their working environment. Individual initiative is regarded as OCB when a person goes that far beyond the expected level of task-related behaviours that these behaviours can be viewed as voluntary (Podsakoff et al., 2000).   When employees engage in individual initiative they showcase extra effort and enthusiasm in order to increase their task performance or the performance of the organization as a whole. They voluntarily come up with new ideas and innovations in order to increase organizational effectiveness and encourage fellow colleagues to act in the same way (Podsakoff, et al., 2000). Organizational loyalty refers to the strong commitment of employees to the organization throughout the good and the bad times (Graham, 1991), defending the organization against threats from the outside and promoting the organization to people outside the organization (Borman Motowidlo, 1997; George Jones 1997). According to the research of Podsakoff et al. (2000) civic virtue(Organ, 1988)means that employees recognize that they are part of a larger whole and they acknowledge and accept the responsibilities for the effective functioning of their organization. The employees actively look out for opportunities and threats in the environment of their organization. They participate actively in the decision making process of the organization and are constantly acting out of the interest of the company while putting their personal interests aside (Podsakoff et al., 2000).   Self development is citizenship behaviour that occurs when employees voluntarily undertake actions in order to learn and improve their skills, knowledge and capabilities (Podsakoff et al., 2000). The study of George and Brief (1992) states that self development might consist of employees participating in advanced training course, employees undertaking actions in order to keep up with the latest developments in their field; or employees might even learn an entirely new set of skills. Self development behaviour is good citizenship behaviour because employees try to improve and increase their personal contributions to the performance and effectiveness of the organization (George Brief, 1992). These seven dimensions of OCB all describe positive acts and contributions from the employees which benefit the organization. According to Organ Konovsky (1989) these combined contributions of individual employees increase organization effectiveness significantly over time. Because of the positive nature of these citizenship behaviours organizations try to stimulate OCBs among their employees. These citizenship pressures lead to higher levels of OCB within the organization, which is essentially favourable for the company (Bolino,Turnley, Gilstrap Suazo, 2010). However, the stimulation of citizenship behaviours can have a negative effect on the employees because the citizenship pressure to please the organization can result in job stress, quitting intensions and work-family and work-leisure conflicts (Bolino et al., 2010; Greenhaus Beutell, 1985; Reich, 2001; Sauter Murphy, 1995). 2.3 The dark side of OCB One could argue that OCB has a lot of positive implications for an organization based on the dimensions described by Podsakoff et al.(2000). Recent studies however have also shed light on the darker side of OCB (Bolino et al.,2010; Korsgaard Meglino, Lester, Jeong,2010; Van Dyne Ellis, 2004; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). Organ (1988) implies that OCB is solely a positive phenomenon within an organization, because of the discretionary and voluntary nature of OCB. Furthermore, Organ (1988, p. 4) argues that â€Å"OCB promotes the effective functioning of an organization†. Vigoda-Gadot (2006, p. 79) concludes from the definition of OCB by Organ (1988) that it implies that â€Å"OCB consists of informal contributions that a participant can choose to make or withhold, without the regard to considerations of sanctions or formal incentives†. However, recent studies have countered the discretionary nature of OCB. Korsgaard et al. (2010, p. 277), argue that OCB is â€Å"based on the norm of reciprocity: the obligation to reciprocate the benefits already received from another (â€Å"paying you back†) and the expected reciprocity that ones actions will stimulate future benefits from another (â€Å"paying me forward†).† Vardi and Weitz (2003) have mentioned the concept of organizational misbehaviour (OMB) in their studies as a counterpart to OCB. Organizational misbehaviour is behaviour of a social nature   that harms the interest of the organization.   According to Vardi and Weitz (2003) there are five types of organizational misbehaviour; intra-personal misbehaviour, inter-personal misbehaviour, property misbehaviour, production misbehaviour and political misbehaviour.   OMB can be viewed as the real dark side of employee behaviours. 2.3.1 Citizenship pressure Citizenship pressure occurs when employees feel the pressure to engage in OCBs because their employer tries to stimulate that behaviour by informal compensation (Bolino,Turnley, Girlstrap Suazo, 2010).Citizenship pressure is a phenomenon that differs from individual to individual and it is of a subjective nature (Bolino, et al.,2010). Employees that are regarded as high-self monitors are more likely to give in to citizenship pressures and engage more in citizenship behaviours, because those employees value their image and the way they are perceived by their co-workers and supervisors (Blakely, Andrews, Fuller, 2003). The study of Bolino et al. (2010) has shown that citizenship pressure leads to higher levels of OCB of employees within an organization. Hence, the studies of Korsgaard, et al.(2010) and Bolino, et al.(2010) question both the discretionary and voluntary nature of OCB. Research has shown that managers do take OCBs into account when evaluating their employees and making other decisions (Podsakoff, et al.,2000) Van Dyne and Ellis (2004) state that with citizenship pressure, behaviour that was once voluntary and discretionary can become an obligation. Van Dyne and Ellis (2004) mention the phenomenon of job creep, this situation occurs when employees constantly feel the pressure to do more than their job actually requires of them. The duties of the employees are slowly increased without official recognition of the organization and in time are expected of the employees (Van Dyne Ellis, 2004). Although citizenship pressure may be a positive phenomenon from an organizations point of view because it leads to more OCB, it also is associated with negative consequences for the employees and their organization (Bolino, et al.,2010). The amounts of job stress experienced by the employees are likely to increase in the case of high levels of citizenship pressures (Bolinio, et al.,2010).   Job stress occurs when employees do not have the capabilities and resources that are needed to fulfil their job requirements. The incapability to fulfil these job demands will lead to negative consequences for the emotional and physical state of the employees who experience high levels of job stress (Sauter Murphy, 1995). According to Bolino, Turnley, Gilstrap, Suazo (2010) employees who experience citizenship pressures to behave as a good citizen of the organization may also feel the pressures at home to be a good partner and parent. This work-family conflict is a role conflict that occurs when the work role demands that are required from an employee are not compatible with the demands of the family (Greenhaus Beutell, 1985).   Work-family conflicts may arise when the partners of the employees have difficulties in understanding why their partner chooses to engage in OCBs that are technically not required of them and are not formally rewarded rather than to spend time with their family (Edwards Rothbard, 2000). Research of Flynn (1996) shows that in a situation of high citizenship pressures employees with less demanding family situations engage in more citizenship behaviours than married employees with more responsibilities towards their families. Another conflict related to citizenship pressure is the work-leisure conflict. This conflict arises when employees experience difficulties in balancing their work demands with their personal life and leisure time (Bolino, et al.,2010). The study of Reich (2001) states that employees who are physically away from their working environment, may still be mentally connected to their job. According to Bolino, et al.(2010) these employees experience a conflict between their desires for free time in their personal lives and the desire to be a good organizational citizen in order to receive the benefits that come with that kind of status. The employees who feel citizenship pressures may not enjoy their free time because they are worrying about the situation and problems at work. Furthermore, they may be troubled by the fact that their co-workers might surpass them in terms of productivity and value for the organization when they enjoy their personal time or they may be experiencing feelings o f guilt because they are not working (Reich, 2001). This may lead to an increasing tendency among employees to keep in contact with their work office, by means of mobile phones, pagers or email, in order to remain available for their colleagues and superiors (Reich, 2001). These types of conflict caused by citizenship pressure, like the work-leisure conflict and the work-family conflict and the phenomenon of job stress, contribute to the job quitting intensions among the employees (Bolino et al.,2010). The dark side of OCB can be accounted to the citizenship pressures exerted by the organization. When an organization pressures   employees to perform citizenship behaviours this can result in negative consequences for the state of mind of the employees (Bolino et al., 2010; Edwards Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus Beutell, 1985; Reich, 2001). This in turn can lead to decreases in productivity and effectiveness for the organization, because employees in a bad state of mind are more likely to leave the organization or work inefficiently (Bolino et al., 2010). 2.4 Desirability of OCB within the organization OCB in its core essence is desirable for organizations because those citizenship behaviours are linked with helping behaviours, loyalty and commitment to the organization, the following of rules and regulations, creativity and innovation and going the extra mile (Podsakoff, et al.,2000) .   These citizenship behaviours are characterized as positive contributions to an organization and its productivity, effectiveness and social climate (Moorman et al., 1988; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, et al.,2000). This makes it difficult for one to argue that citizenship behaviours are not desirable within an organization. However, there is also a darker side to OCB. These negative side effects of OCB occur when the voluntary and discretionary nature of citizenship behaviours is removed because of citizenship pressures exerted by the organization on their employees (Bolino et al.,2010; Korsgaard et al.2010) . Citizenship pressures can result in job stress, work-family conflicts, work-leisure conflicts and eventually in quitting intensions among employees (Bolino et al., 2010; Edwards Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus Beutell, 1985; Reich, 2001).   Effectiveness and productivity of employees decrease when they experience job stress or work-family or work leisure conflicts, which in turn also has a negative influence on the company as a whole (Bolino, et al.,2010). In conclusion, one could argue that citizenship behaviours are a positive and desired phenomenon for an organization when the negative consequences of citizenship pressures exerted by the organization are not taken into account. However, citizenship pressures result in more OCBs among employees and thus organizations are inclined to exert those pressures on their employees (Bolino et al.,2010). Thus, organizations have to balance the positive and negative consequences of citizenship pressures and OCBs in order to maximize   the value of the employees for the company. Because citizenship pressures has different outcomes for each individual employee, the organization and group leaders could benefit from a thorough analysis of their workforce (Bolino et al., 2010). For instance, employees who are considered to be high self-monitors are more likely to engage in citizenship behaviours when they feel citizenship pressure, because they care about how they are being perceived by their co-w orkers and leaders (Blakely et al., 2003) Chapter 3.The transformational and transactional leadership styles 3.1 Introduction Leadership has always been an interesting topic for researchers from different fields. According to Tannenbaum, Weschler and Masarik (1961, p. 24) leadership is: â€Å"interpersonal influence exercised in situations and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals†. According to Wayne, Shore Liden (1997) leadership is important because the exchange between a manager and his follower   is the most important factor in determining employee behaviour. In the literature a distinction has been made by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) between transactional leadership and transformational leadership. Burns (1978) reports that transactional and transformation leadership are complete opposites. Bass (1985), however, argues that transformational leaders may also use transactional leadership behaviours in certain situations. The concepts of transactional and transformational leadership will be explained in this chapter. 3.2 Transactional leadership The study of Bass (1985) shows that transactional leaders make the tasks and responsibilities of the followers clear and also promise the followers compensation for when their tasks are performed according to the standards. According to Deluga (1990) transactional leadership is an exchange process in which rewards and punishments are administered. Transactional leaders exchange financial rewards for productivity or deny rewards when the productivity of the followers is lacking (Bass Riggio, 2006). The relationship between the leader and his followers in a system of transactional leadership is focused on self interest and based on mutual dependency (Lagamarsino Cardona, 2003). Bass (1990) concludes in his research that there are four different types of transactional leadership. Contingent reward: The leader sets up a contract based on performance and rewards, solid performance is compensated with rewards. When goals are met the employees will get recognition for their accomplishments. Contingent reward leader behaviours have shown to have a positive relation with performance and follower attitudes (Avolio, Waldman Einstein, 1988; Waldman, Bass Yammarino, 1990). Laissez-Faire: In this particular form of transactional leadership the leader avoids making decisions and steps away from any responsibilities. The subordinates have to fulfil their tasks on their own. According to Dubinsky, Yammarino, Jolson, Spangler (1995) this type of leader is indifferent, frequently absent,   inattentive and does not influence the workforce. Management by exception (active): The leader actively looks for errors and mistakes in the work process. When the tasks performance of the employees is not on the required level the leader will intervene and he will try to put the employees back on the right track. Management by exception (passive): The leader only undertakes actions when the level of output and requirements and standards are not met by his subordinates. All these types of transactional leadership lack leadership behaviours that motivate employees to be the best they can be for the organization and to go the extra mile for colleagues and superiors. 3.3 Transformational leadership The transformational leadership theory of Bass (1985) states that transformational leadership creates a bond of trust between the leader and followers, motivating employees to achieve beyond expectations. According to Bass (1985) transformational leadership activates employees higher-order needs and lets them act out of the interest of the company. Transformational leaders are able to motivate their followers to the degree that they not only increase their task performance but also engage in OCBs that help the organization to function in an effective way (Smith, Organ, Near, 1983). Transformational leaders motivate their subordinates to come up with creative and innovative for difficult issues within the organization (Bass, 1985). Furthermore, in the transformational leadership style the leaders encourage their followers to go the extra mile for the organization and they reach out to their employees with constructive feedback (Bass, 1985).   Transformational leaders make their mis sions and goals clear to their followers and they convince the followers to act out of interest of the company (Piccolo Colquitt, 2006). Employees who are able to link their own success with that of the company and can identify with the values and goals of the organization are more likely to add value to the organization (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, Fetter, 1990). Bass (1985) states in his research that when a manager acts like a transformational leader he will be perceived as a more satisfying and effective leader than a transactional leader. Furthermore, according to the studies of Bass (1985), employees report that they are more willing to put in extra effort and time for managers who behave as transformational leaders. Bass Avolio (1993) and Pillai (1995) have reported in their studies that there is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and employee satisfaction, and between transformational leadership and in-role behaviours that lead to job performan ce. According to Yukl (1999) transformational leadership can be viewed as the equivalent of charismatic leadership. In their research, Avolio Bass (2002) distinguished four different components of transformational leadership. Idealized influence: The leaders are admired, respected and trusted by their followers. The leaders are seen as examples/ role-models by the followers and the followers are inspired to emulate their actions. The leaders also put their followers interests above their own interest which earns them trust and respect. Idealized influence, or the charismatic dimension of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), is often described as the most important component of transformational leadership (Waldman, Bass, Yammarino, 1990). Charismatic leaders receive respect and trust from their followers, because they create a sense of pride among their followers and communicate clear visions and missions (Bass, 1985).   Inspirational motivation: The leaders motivate their followers by attaching meaning and challenge to their work. The leader shows optimism and enthusiasm which stimulates individual and team spirit among the followers. Individualized consideration: The leaders take the needs and desires of the individual followers into account. The followers receive individual support from their leader in order to grow and develop and achieve higher goals. Intellectual stimulation: The followers are encouraged to be creative and innovative by their leaders. New approaches and new ideas are stimulated in order to get creative solutions to existing problems. Out of the box thinking is rewarded and it is not a shame to make errors. Chapter 4. The influence of transactional and transformational leadership on OCB 4.1 Introduction The predominant style of leadership in an organization has a great influence on the amount and types of OCBs performed by the employees within the organization. Bass (1990) described an experiment in a working area for convicted inmates. In this workplace the inmates had to produce several different types of products for in and outside the prison walls. One group of their supervisors received training in order to become transformational leaders, and the other group received a transactional leadership training. The inmates that were supervised by groups of transformational leaders performed better than those that were supervised by the transactional leaders. Not only did they perform better in the areas of productivity, absence and behaviour, the inmates also engaged in more citizenship behaviours. Furthermore, Bass (1990) states in his research that managers who are viewed as the high performers by their supervisors, also were viewed to be of a more transformational than transactional nature by their followers in a separate survey. In this chapter the relationship between transactional leadership, transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour will be discussed. 4.2 Transactional leadership and OCB The transactional leadership style is based on an exchange relation between leaders and their followers. Employees are rewarded or punished based on whether or not their performance is according to the standards that were set by their transactional supervisors (Bass, 1985; Bass Riggio, 2006; Deluga, 1990). Because transactional leadership is a system of mutual dependency between leaders and followers that is based on self interest (Lagamarsino Cordona, 2003) and primarily an exchange process, transactional leadership leads to a low amount of citizenship behaviours performed by employees. The four different types of transactional leadership (Bass, 1990) do not convince employees to perform the seven dimensions of citizenship behaviour (Podsakoff et al.,2000). In the laissez-faire leadership style the leader avoids making decisions and steps away from his responsibilities. The followers have to do their tasks on their own and there is hardly any communication with the leaders. The leader is frequently absent, inattentive and indifferent and does not influence the workforce (Dubinsky et al.,1995). It is obvious that this type of leader will not stimulate citizenship behaviours among his followers. The leaders who act according to the management by exception style (both passive and active) only intervene when their followers do not meet up with the requirements and standards that are set for them. The employees do no

Plessy vs. Ferguson :: essays research papers

Plessy vs.Ferguson   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The case of Plessy vs. Ferguson started when a 30-year-old colored shoemaker named Homer Plessy was put in jail for sitting in the white car of the East Louisiana Railroad on June 7, 1892. Even though Plessy was only one-eighths black and seven-eighths white, he was considered black by Louisiana law. Plessy didn’t like this idea, and so he went to court and argued in the case of Homer Adolph Plessy v. The State of Lousiana that the Separate Car Act, which forced segregation of train cars, violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Thirteenth Amendment was made in order to abolish slavery, while the object of the Fourteenth Amendment was to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law. The name of â€Å"Ferguson† was given to the case because the judge at the trial was named John Howard Ferguson.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Judge Ferguson had previously declared that the Separate Car Act was unconstitutional on trains that traveled through several states, but he ruled that within the state, the state government could choose to regulate the railroad companies that operate within their respective state. The ruling was that the judge found Plessy guilty of refusing to leave the white car. Plessy proceeded to appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which also found him guilty. In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States heard Plessy’s case and found him guilty once again.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  My view on this particular case sides with Plessy rather than Ferguson. I believe in total equality and the idea of no difference between fellow human beings. There should be no distinction made between that which is for the white man, and that which is for the black man.

World War II: What Made Allied Victory Possible

The Second World War was the most important event in the 20th century. It changed the course of history when the destruction caused by the conflict resulted in changing the power structure in Europe. At the end of the war the economies of Germany, Japan, France, and the United Kingdom was threatened due to war reparations and the cost of human lives. But the United States who waged war from a distance came out of the war as the new global superpower. But in the first two years of the second global conflict there was no indication that Axis Powers will lose the war. It was only after Germany engaged the enemy on two fronts and when the United States joined the fray that the Allied Powers were able to gather enough strength to defeat Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy. Background It is impossible to understand World War II without going back a few decades and study the First World War. This is because the first and second global conflict had one common denominator – Germany as the main player and main loser for both events. In World War I Germany was in the center of the conflict as it tried to honor an alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The heir to the Astro-Hungarian Empire was assassinated by someone who had links to the Serbian government. Thus the Hapsburg Empire was forced to issue an ultimatum to Serbia. The Serbian government in turn had pride and honor at stake and this prevented them from acceding to their demands. Russia was sympathetic to Serbia and promised to assist her if Germany will support the Hapsburg government. The only problem here is that Russia was allied to France and Britain. The Triple Entente composed of Britain, France and Russia was bound by an accord that the triumvirate signed in 1907 (Neiberg, 2005). On the other hand, the opposing team, the Central Powers composed of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria were bound by their own treaties and alliances as well (Neiberg, 2005). And so begins the chain reaction of events that would escalate the conflict in Europe. To make the long story short the Central Powers were defeated by the Triple Entente. It is interesting to note that after the First World War Bulgaria, Austria-Hungary Empire and Turkey were reduced to almost nothing. Germany suffered the same fate, humiliated and without the capability to rise up again as an empire. All of that began to change two decades later when an ambitious young leader by the name of Adolph Hitler – he was a corporal in World War I – was able to inspire the German people that they can repossessed what was taken from them. In the 1930s Hitler with his charisma and visionary leadership was able to create a Nazi party that would soon threaten the whole world. Nazi Germany’s Early Success There are many reasons why Nazi Germany was militarily successful in the first two years of the war. First of all, Hitler’s Nazi party, the engine that runs the war campaign had the support of the German people. According to Fulbrook, â€Å"For much of the 1930s, they experienced a certain congruence of aims with the Nazis, in the areas of economic regeneration under authoritarian, anti-union auspices, and rearmament and revision of the hated Treaty of Versailles† (1991). Aside from the popularity of the Nazi party, German forces were successful in war because of Hitler’s visionary leadership as well as his decisiveness when it comes to enforicing Nazi foreign policy. Hitler was able to communicate so clearly how Germany would rise again and take back what belongs to them. He was able to show the German people that if they will do it right this time, then never again will outsiders ridicule them. His vision will be realized if the German people will support his foreign policy program. As mentioned earlier this will entail the revising of the Treaty of Versailles – an armistice with the victors of World War I that proved to be disastrous for Germany. Secondly, Hitler’s foreign policy requires the incorporation of Austria and transforming Czechoslovakia and Poland into satellite states; then confronting France and then Russia before going after world domination (Fulbrook, 1991). This foreign policy program may have been a byproduct of the Fuhrer’s false sense of superiority but one has to admit that it inspired the German people. For those who doubt they only need to review war films and pictures that show enthusiastic German soldiers eager to lay their lives for Hitler’s dream of a Third Reich. War Weary Europe The Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1918. In 1938 Hitler’s army marched triumphantly into Austria without firing a single shot; it was a bloodless invasion. In 1938 Europe was only two decades removed from the bloodiest European conflict in recent history. The Europeans could still feel the impact of the First World War where millions of young men died from senseless violence. Now here comes Hitler, with an army determined to fight old enemies once again in the blood drenched battlefields of Europe. It was clear that France and Britain are not interested for a repeat performance. It was clear for Hitler and his cohorts that Britain is their number one problem. But Britain was not the same empire that terrorized many in the 18th and 19th century. In the 1930s it was a shell of its former self. It had to go through a bloody war with its American colonies and in 1914 to 1918 participated in the first global war. Britain was war weary as the rest of Europe. Aside form that the British had to deal with a lot of problems as a result of having many colonies around the world (Rock, 2000). Hitler apparently understood that Britain will not stand in his way and so Hitler began to move his troops to continue his conquest and next stop was Czechoslovakia. This prompted action from the Britain but they did not wish to fight Germany, only to negotiate. The then British Prime Minister Chamberlain tried to diffuse the situation by offering appeasement to Germany. At the end of the Munich Conference in 1938, there were certain borders of Czechoslovakia that was ceded to Nazi Germany (Fulbrook, 2005). Chamberlain declared that peace was achieved and war averted but he did not realize that Hitler was merely warming up. Less than a year later Hitler invaded what was left of Czechoslovakia and was met with little resistance. At this point Hitler has become a European bully; but no one was strong enough to stand against him. Leaders from France and Britain tried their best to be strategic and not use their emotions in making decisions. Meanwhile Hitler made another brilliant move when he secured a pact with Russia. By doing so Hitler will be assured that in the event of an escalation of conflict he will not have to fight a war in two fronts. Hitler began to make another major campaign, this time he wanted to get Poland. But Britain said no and then went further to assure the Polish government that Great Britain is ready to help her against foreign invaders. But by this time, â€Å"†¦Hitler had by now formed the impression that Britain was essentially weak and vacillating, and would not stand by its guarantee† (Fulbrook, 2005). Less than a year after the Munich Conference Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939. In a lighting campaign (Blitzkrieg) German forces overwhelmed Poland in less than three weeks of fighting (Fulbrook, 2005). Britain and France declared war on Germany. Hitler’s Army Aside from Hitler’s charisma, vision and decisive leadership, another important aspect of Nazi Germany is the presence of elite soldiers called the German SS or Schutzstaffeln. These were handpicked men that were groomed to become an elite fighting unit. The German SS would, â€Å"†¦spearhead some of the most crucial battles of WWII while its men would shoulder some of the most difficult and daunting combat operations of the units in the German military† (GermanWArMachine, 2007). In 1929 Hitler asked his most trusted aide, Heinrich Himmler to form an elite force that will safeguard the Nazi Party, â€Å"†¦a troop dependable in every circumstance† (Stein, 1984). And that is what he got. After undergoing a process of difficult training and learning how to best serve under the Third Reich the German SS went through a baptism of fire. In June 30, 1934, in an event that will be known as the Night of the Long Knives SS troops crossed a point of no return and forever sealed their fate as the most frightening Special Forces under the command of the Fuhrer (Stein, 1984). In this fateful night Hitler ordered his shock troops to eliminate the core group of their arch-rival the SA (Sturmabteilungen). The bloody purging, where the German SS killed their former comrade-in-arms forever changed their image and their mindsets, now they are ready to conquer the world. Allied Victory There were at least four major factors that led to Allied Victory, first of all there was strong leadership among the Allied Forces; secondly the United States of America, the emerging global superpower decided to participate after years of being an observer; thirdly the Allied Forces ability to exploit resources, specifically fossil fuel; and finally Allied Victory was made possible by Hitler’s major blunder, engaging the enemy in two fronts. All four will be discussed in the following pages starting with the discussion of leadership that was well illustrated by the actions of Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, General Marshall, and Gen. Eisenhower. Leadership The Second World War was not only about battlefields and mechanized warfare. It was also a political stage where national leaders from both side of the fence were able to show their courage, brilliance, and strength of character. One of the most important leaders during the dark times of Nazi supremacy was Winston Churchill who made a defiant stand against Hitler and his army. This was illustrated in the year 1941, in one of the darkest times in British history. The British government declared war on Germany and received a harsh reply; the forces of the Third Reich continued to pound on Great Britain and weakened her considerably. Hitler and his cohorts were very much aware that the English people are going to be a major roadblock to world domination. Yet, Hitler was confident that the England would finally succumb to their air raid and Blitzkrieg. But Hitler underestimated the resolve of one man – Winston Churchill. At the onset of World War II the U. S. government could not see the wisdom of meddling with the European conflict. America was so far removed from the European theater of war that it was contented to stay on the sidelines. Still, America contributed to the Allied cause by sending in equipment and war materials to Britain. This neutral stance would have remained if only Japan did not bomb Pearl Harbor. But after the shocking attack in the said American military base, the United States could not simply wage war against the formidable trio of Germany, Japan and Italy. The U. S. mainland needed the wisdom and strength of an able leader. They were fortunate to find these rare qualities in the person of Franklin D. Roosevelt. While Churchill and Roosevelt played a crucial role in bringing together alliance that would defeat Nazi Germany it would require another set of leaders to execute a plan for defeating Hitler in Europe. In this regard two outstanding military leaders needed to be mentioned in this section – George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower. In 1942 the Americans are already part of the conflict. Its main job is to build an army, secure the shipping lines to get it overseas, establish and organization through which America can work with the British on a strategy to defeat Hitler (Ambrose, 1999). The United States was fortunate to have George Marshall and Dwight D. Eisenhower on board. Stephen Ambrose was able to succinctly describe the contribution of these great men and he wrote: Marshall’s strengths were in the higher levels of policy, organization, and strategy. In these areas Eisenhower followed, for he was an operator rather than a theoretician, the perfect man to take Marshall’s concepts and translate them into practice. The Supreme Allied Command in Europe would never have come about had it not been for Marshall’s thought, driving force, and persuasive powers, but it would not have worked had it not been for Eisenhower (Ambrose, 1999). All these men worked together to bring about Allied victory. The Free World will forever be indebted to Churchill for his defiant stand against Germany. If he raised the white flag of surrender in 1940 Hitler could have easily gathered momentum and proceeded with his ultimate plan of world domination. Without Roosevelt’s wisdom of first helping the British and then following shortly to join the war the Allied Forces could not have mustered enough manpower and firepower to defeat the Axis Powers. And without the able leadership of Marshall and Eisenhower Allied Forces could not have assembled an army so large and so effective that it was able to bring Germany to its knees. American Participation Much has been said about the defiant stand of the British forces as well as the British people who had to endure the regular air raids of the German Luftwaffe. But Great Britain knew that the best that they could hope for was a stalemate. They had to get help from an outsider in order for them to break the deadlock and proceed to start a counter-attack. But in the beginning of the war it was clear that there is no other nation in Europe that could neutralize the brutal efficiency and rabid determination of the German army. The assistance that Britain desperately needed did not come from the European continent but form another land mass across the Atlantic. One of the gross tactical error of the Axis Powers was to give the go signal for Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor. With hindsight it will be easy to analyze that attacking and provoking America was a serious blunder that cost them the war. America was content to stay behind the scenes and did not make any commitment to lend a major part of their industries to help the Allied Forces. But all of this changed when Pearl Harbor was decimated by Japan’s Imperial forces. The subsequent declaration of America that it has joined the war signaled a crucial turning point in World War II. Resources One of the most crucial factors that gave victory to the Allies was there capability to exploit and control fossil fuel. According to Williamson Murray access to petroleum products was an important aspect of the war considering that Germany and Japan were already dependent on foreign oil before they went to war (Murray, 2001). This probably explains why Hitler planned on scoring a quick victory. It was apparent that Hitler could not afford to engage in a long-drawn-out war. But as the war progressed the participation of the United States proved to be very crucial because America produced two-thirds of the world’s petroleum (Murray, 2001). When Germany and Japan could not access fossil fuel their operations was critically affected. Germany Divided Leadership was an important factor in winning the war for the Allies. But the Axis Powers had great leaders too so it can easily neutralize the Allied Forces in the leadership department. The entry of the United States in World War II was also a factor why Germany lost in the war but America was too far away from Europe and it would require a massive logistical effort before it can begin developing and sending soldiers into Europe. Germany still had time to prepare for the incoming Americans. Resources was also a crucial factor in the war but if Hitler can continually use Blitzkrieg, his lightning fast method of deploying troops and engaging the enemy, the war could be over even without draining resources form Germany. In the initial phase of World War II this was the case – European nations easily gave up their freedom when held at gunpoint by German forces. Therefore it can be argued that the single most crucial factor that led to the demise of Nazi Germany was its decision to disregard the pact made earlier between Russia and then proceeded to attack the Soviet Union. At this point Hitler was so full of himself so he decided that in the summer of 1941 his army will attack Russia, â€Å"†¦thus affecting what he had previously been concerned to avoid: war on two fronts† (Fulbrook, 1991). By engaging Britain and Russia at once German forces were over-extended and ill-equipped (Fubrook, 1991). When the combined American and British forces came later Germany could no longer sustain its attack and slowly began to disintegrate. Conclusion The provisions of the Treaty of Versailles were put in place to control Germany so that it will never duplicate what it has achieved in World War I. But this strategy backfired when Adolph Hitler used the sentiments of the people against the said treaty. He promised them that he will revise the Treaty of Versailles if only the German people will support him in war. When Hitler secured the support of the people, he did not waste time and proceeded to use Blitzkrieg, a German term for lightning quick attacks on enemy territories. Through this method Hitler was able to expand German territory in less than two years, a considerable feat. Europe was tired of war. The recently concluded World War I was fresh in the memory of most people. This gave Hitler the confidence that nations would not resist and allow him to take what he wanted. But he overestimated his capabilities and the capability of Nazi Germany. When it engaged England, Russia, and America at the same time, German soldiers were spread thin and lacking military equipment. The protracted war was not part of Hitler’s plans. When America came in to break the deadlock between Allied and Axis forces Germany began to lose steam and in 1945 it finally raised the white flag.

Illegal Street Race Essay

The incident reported by AP (17 February 2008) and Vogel (17 February 2010) refers to an accident involving illegal street racing that killed eight bystanders in Prince George’s County near Washington. The killer race took place between two racers at 3 am on 16 February. According to the press reports, the two drivers had initially performed ‘burnouts’ where the cars are spun around in low gear, top acceleration but with breaks as this warms up the tires and the engines. It also creates a lot of smoke due to burnt rubber, smoke that did not go away but gathered like a shroud around 300 bystanders who had gathered to watch the race. When the racers came along the street, they could not see the crowd hidden under the smoke and one of the cars rammed into the crowd at speeds of more than 100 miles per hour, killing eight people and injuring others. Police teams that arrived after the accident used techniques of interviewing the witnesses and those injured to reconstruct the events that took place. Since identifying the victims was difficult due to the large number of bystanders, the police took digital pictures of the victims and showed them to the people to find their identities. There was no criminal motive behind the crash and the crash was not also pre-mediated murder. The report says that illegal street racing has been popular in the dark back roads of the areas since decades. Racers often modify their cars so that it runs much faster and the prize money can also be very tempting. However, the main motive for participation is the chance to brag about the win and gain a reputation among the local people (Vogel, 17 February 2010). According to RASR (22 May 2003), young people from different nations have been subjected a false portrayal in movies and computer games that illegal street racing is glamorous. Many of the games such as Need for Speed, Fast and Furious, Burnout, Grand Theft Auto and others portray such deviant behavior as racing on the streets, killing people, running over or beating policemen as an achievement. Added to this is the fact that car racing has a lot of glamour factor with speed and girls. As a result, youth would willingly take up such races if they have the chance. The motivation for the racer in many cases is to break the law and do something dangerous that people in their group appreciate. The fact that people get killed during a crash does not bother the racer and neither the fact that the racer himself may get killed. Organizations such as RASR – Racers Against Street Racing is made of professional racers who have started a campaign to make illegal street racers to stop such activities and race in legally organized track races. The important thing about legal track racing is that bystanders are safe and racers have to observe certain rules of behavior. The group is similar to many others who believe that making illegal racers to be aware of the danger is the best deterrent. Policing each and every rural road is simply not feasible. The argument about the quantum of punishment meted out to drivers of such races that crash and kill people needs some consideration. All these years, in USA, the quantum of punishment was not very strict and the killer driver would have his license impounded, the vehicle destroyed followed by a light jail sentence. However, with increasing number of illegal racing accidents, the law has become much stricter. Robert Caizalez of California and his competitor who killed 3 people in an illegal race in 2009 were sentenced to 48 years and 45 years to life. In Saudi Arabia, an illegal street racer who killed 2 people was not only sentenced to be lashed 3000 times but also 20 years jail. These laws seem very strict but they are required to act as a deterrent for illegal street racers who kill children as well as the elderly. So on the face of it; I would argue that such strict and harsh rules are important to keep the streets safe. However, the counter argument would be that the culture of creating a glamorous image of street racing through violent and deviant video games still continues unpunished. The firms that make such games are not penalized and neither is any study done on how such games influence people to take up illegal street racing. While killers should be punished, the government and the courts should empower the police force to stop the sale of such violent games. More than strict and severe sentencing, what is needed is counseling and creating an atmosphere where the racers themselves come to terms with their deeds is important. Over speeding happens every second on the road and deaths also occur but the drivers are not sentenced to 48 years to life in prison. A proper and balanced view must be taken by the honorable courts to create deterrence through strict sentencing and also through counseling.

Slave Mistreatment History Essay Sample

Slave Mistreatment History Essay Sample Slave Mistreatment History Essay Slave Mistreatment History Essay The Antebellum period, between 1789 and 1860, marks an important time in the history of slavery, especially in Louisiana. During this period, the slaves experienced a lot of mistreatment from the masters more than any other time. Some of the reasons that contributed to the heightened mistreatments were the booming agricultural activities in the state and the fact that most slave owners were turning to capitalism and, therefore, were in need of intensive labor. As a result, slaves were exposed to deplorable living conditions, which caused them to engage in resistance movements, suicide attempts, and attempts to run away from their masters. It was also during this period that wives of slaves were raped, women were forced to work alongside their slave husbands in sugar plantations, and children left home alone for a very long time. SLAVERY IN LOUISIANA DURING THE ANTEBELLUM PERIOD (1789-1860) In addition, the housing situation was not favorable to the slaves as they were forced to live in squalid conditions where they faced dangers of being killed, catching diseases, and lacking basic amenities like water and sewerage systems. The purpose of the current paper is to explore the living conditions of slaves during the Antebellum period in Louisiana. The paper focuses on the slave resistance, rape of wives of slaves, condition of slaves’ children, the experience of slaves in plantations, the overall living conditions from housing to food provisions, as well as the punishment that was meted out for trying to run away from masters. The Living Conditions of Slaves The Antebellum period is considered to be the period between the adoption of the Constitution and the beginning of the Civil War in America. This period is characterized by the abolition and polarization of the country between supporters of the slavery and the abolitionists, those who opposed slavery. Also, it is a period that witnessed a revolution in the agricultural sector with industries coming up to process products such as cotton and sugarcane. With cotton gin being discovered, there emerged plantations of cotton in Louisiana where slaves were captured and forced to work. There was also the Louisiana Purchase that prompted allocation of big tracts of land to influential words who had the capacity to buy slaves to work in those farms. The whites who owned slaves also developed a sense of superiority over the people of color and the slaves and, hence, acted as the instruments of slavery by engaging and facilitating slave trade. During the Antebellum period, which preceded the Ame rican Civil War, slavery was expressed in different forms. It was practiced in almost all sectors of the lives of black people, who were considered to be property of their masters. In small farms, large sugar plantations, homes, fields, cities and towns, slavery was the order of the day. As the property of slave owners, slaves were exposed to many forms of violence which included hard and long labor in farms, beatings, and threats of being killed as well as rape of women belonging to enslaved black people. The relationship between the enslaved and the owners varied from one slave owner to the other. While some slaves had a cordial relationship with their masters, they remained conscious of the fact that they were properties of the masters and, hence, the fear and reverence dominated the lives of the slaves. Some masters showed genuine care for their slaves but this was hampered by the fact that there existed a huge power imbalance under which the slavery had been brought up in the state. In the confines of the slavery were feelings of both contempt and compassion from slave owners across the state. There was no possibility of reaching equality in the way majority black slaves and minority white slave owners were treated in social amenities like schools or hospitals. The image of slavery was presented through large sugar and cotton plantations where hundreds of slaves worked. This, however, was restricted to 25% of the whites who owned slaves and large piece of land. The whites, who did not have ownership of slaves, were supportive of the slavery practices by the slave owners, even though they did not benefit directly from the work of slaves. They only defended and identified with slave owning whites by perpetuating the discriminatory laws and policies that had been put in place by the slavery system. For example, they did not allow children of the slaves to attend same schools with their children. Even blacks, who were free from slavery, were not allowed to mingle freely with the whites. Link, Rembert and Fletcher (150), even though the majority of the whites with no slaves did not like the power and wealth that slave-owners exhibited, they had the ambition to own slaves and arose to the privileged rank of their slave-owning whites. These slave owners felt superior over the slaves that they owned, and took every opportunity to deny their human rights. The slaves were deprived of all the resources that could make their living standards better; moreover, the slavery system suppressed their attempts to gain wealth or come out of poverty by keeping them in servant quarters. The lives of the slaves composed of working long hours in sugar and cotton plantations. The plantations were large tracts of land but the slaves were few. They mainly worked in cotton farms but also produced sugarcane, tobacco, and rice which were later sold in other places by their masters. Apart from carrying out planting and harvesting, slaves were also expected to clear out new lands acquired by their owners, dig out ditches around the farms, prepare woods for lighting, tend after animals, and repair buildings and tools belonging to their masters. In addition, they worked as drivers, carpenters, mechanics, and all other jobs that were needed to be done in homes of the slave owners. Black women cared for their families besides helping their men in farms to transport cotton or sugarcane to factories. They also practiced weaving, sewing, and spinning. Some women slaves were designated as house servants who worked in the homes of their masters. Their daily routine consisted of doing house chores and all domestic functions assigned to them by their masters. Masters and mistresses constantly watched over them to ensure that they followed the instructions, and did not engage in activities that could endanger the lives of their masters. The slaves could be called up at any time of the day to come and do the service in the house. Women slaves working in homes did not have much privacy and family time because they could be required in the house at any time. In many cases, they were given servant quarters within the homes of their masters living in close proximity. They, thus, formed a complex relationship with their masters especially the children of the blacks and those of whites who often played together in the compounds. It was common for black children to become accustomed to their white caretakers while white children got used to the black servants working in their homes. The cordial relationship between children of slaves and those of slave owners was based solely on the fact that children did not understand the slavery system. However, as they grew up, they learnt to adjust appropriately, each occupying their rightful position in the society according to the slavery system. In fact, white children who may have played together with children of slaves became slave owners of the very children they had played with in the childhood. Since many slaves were transported in the sea for a very long period of time before they came to Louisiana, many of them were exposed to dangerous diseases such as scurvy. Coupled with hard labor in farms, poor housing conditions, lack of enough food, as well as general psychological problems, new slaves experienced difficulties in coping up with the conditions of slavery and some died. Deaths were mostly caused by opportunistic diseases due to unfavorable working conditions, injuries sustained from beating or working long hours in the farms as well as lack of energy in their bodies. Slaves found breaking the laws were hanged by courts controlled by the white supremacists. They were also put in crude servant quarters that made them vulnerable to diseases and bad weather conditions without sufficient bedding and clothing. Slaves working in farms also did not have a good access to food stores where they could buy foods for themselves and their families. Instead, they depended on the pe rmission of their masters to go and buy the items that their families required and, in most cases, the permissions were not easily granted. In terms of weather, the newly arrived slaves from cooler regions did not fare well in Louisiana. The region was mostly hot and humid, creating problems for people who lived there. However, this was worse for slaves since the slave owners had the capacity to protect themselves against bad weather conditions. The living conditions also were characterized by poor sanitation facilities, lack of balanced diet, and persistent had labor in farms, exposing the slaves to diseases and psychological problems. Furthermore, there were not sufficient treatment facilities for slaves, which meant that falling was like a death sentence for some slaves. Some slaves were expected to work even when they fall sick causing a number of them to die in the farms. In plantations such as sugar and rice, slaves were not given protective equipment to cover them from injuries. The rice plantations were mostly covered in water pools and those who worked in such plantations were forced to stand in water with bear feet for many hours. Thus, they were exposed to waterborne diseases. The region was also hot making the spread of malaria very rampant. Thus, malaria was a common disease that killed thousands of slaves both working in farms and living in servant quarters. It is estimated that in one plantation, child mortality resulting from malaria related deaths was as high as 90% but the average rate across Louisiana was 66% during the period of slavery. Despite of the poor living and working conditions, slaves also lived under the threat of being sold to the next master. This was the worst form of threat to slaves because in most cases, new owners came out as more brutal than the current ones. Slaves lived under this constant threat of being sold especially when their owners felt that they could fetch more prices on the market. Thus, to avoid being sold, they could injure themselves so that when they are taken to the market they do not fetch higher prices. As observed by Johnson, the sale of slaves was also controlled by several factors other than just being disloyal or disrespectful to the master. The factors that drove slave market included the possible discounts that slave sellers were likely to get from a particular slave, the cost of transporting them to their new destinations, legal restrictions, and the cost of bearing the children if their parents are sold as slaves. Thus, selectivity selling of slaves was highly practiced d epending on the arbitrage opportunity for slave families. Even in cases where the slave owners exhibited some form of benevolence towards their slaves, slaves lived under constant fear of financial loss or a personal crisis that could lead them to being sold to the next bidder in the market. More frightening to the slave was when their master decided to sell them as a form of punishment because then they would be given out to the most brutal slave owner in the region. During the sale, slave families were separated but where they were sold as a family, they were invariably removed from their extended family and taken to a completely new environment where they did not have relatives. As a result, cousins, brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, and close relatives were scattered forcefully and denied any opportunity to see each other again. Even in cases where they were not sold, they lived under the threat of getting to the market as they witnessed their relatives being sold. What Happened if Slaves did not do their Work in Plantations? The lives of slaves were dominated with mistreatment and forceful labor. Thus, in many instances, slaves were subjected to poor working conditions when they showed a sign of resisting the deplorable conditions and mistreatment from their masters. In severe cases, some slaves were whipped and killed by their brutal masters. When the masters were law-abiding people, they took the resisting slaves or those, who had broken the policies of the farm, to courts where they were tried and charged with disobedience to their masters. In extreme cases, those, who were found guilty, were hanged. The slaves were expected to obey all the orders from their masters and mistresses, and trying to run away was an offense punishable in a court of law. They were also expected to persevere in the mistreatments and the poor living conditions without showing resistance although in many cases there were revolutions in many plantations. In terms of relationships, the law did not allow them to marry to people from white families although they could have relationships with other slaves from different plantations. However, they were not allowed to marry in the church and family relationships were subject to the wills and approvals of the plantation owner. The family relationships were often disrupted with the sale of one of the members or the whole family to a different owner. Nonetheless, there was a sense of encouragement from majority of slave owners to slaves to start families even though this was done in the interest of the owners. It was a form of discouraging the slaves from running away from their masters because they could not afford to leave behind their family, leave alone affords the cost of transporting the whole family to a new place. Whereas there were cases of slaves running away from their masters, this was not commonly experienced in Louisiana since many slaves formed their own communities with dedicated values, identity, and activities that kept them together. As a result, slave owners encouraged them to form communities as a means of preventing them from escaping. However, such communities also became distrustful of the slaves that worked so close to the masters noting that they were acting as informers of their masters. In a way, the formation of communities was something that helped to maintain a closer bond among the slaves but acted as a breeding ground for resistance ideas. The slavery system introduced a form of hierarchy among the slaves as a way of dividing them for easier ruling. For instance, midwives and religious leaders were highly regarded above the common slaves who worked in the farms. In the same way, hunters were regarded as important because they helped the communities to get meat and, the refore, have a constant supply of food, even though of the same diet. Life at the Plantation: Housing, Injury, Punishment, Hanging Slaves at the plantations lived adjacent to plantations where they worked. The servant quarters were living units that were usually crowded with poor social amenities. The servant quarters were the housing facilities provided by the slave owners. The slaves formed communities where they could gather together whenever they were not working to tell stories, sing, and dance as a form of collective historical memory of their original homes. Few slave owners allowed their slaves to learn or take their children to school. The 1830 Louisiana law outlawed teaching of slaves and overtly declared such an act as a crime. Thus, this enforced the oral education among the slaves in their quarters. The places where the slaves lived were void of security. As such, slaves could be attacked and injured when they were coming from work late at night. In farms, slaves got injured when picking cotton or cutting sugarcane. They also got injured from digging trenches or splitting wood for their masters. In rice plantations, slaves could be injured from stings by water insects where they worked. Those, who violated the laws set in Louisiana or the policies in plantations, were punished in different ways. In common terms, slaves were punished for crimes of â€Å"neglect, absence from work, eating the sugar cane, theft are cart whipping, beating with a stick, sometimes to the breaking of bones, the chain, an iron crook about the neck.† They were also subjected to confinement in isolated areas, ears being pulled and slit, limbs broken for purposes of being amputated, eye popping, and castration. During the punishment of slaves, Phillips argued that brutal masters and supervisors did not demonstrate any leniency, sympathy, decency, or morality to the already mistreated slaves. Such were considered to be properties that did not have any human rights but only worth of torture and death. The existing laws did not provide any protection of the slaves from their abuse and irrational masters. Only the overseers had the powers to protect the slaves in plantations but in the most cases they acted in the interest of the plantation owners and under pressure to ensure the slaves were more productive as per the expectations of the master. Across Louisiana, slaves were punished by whipping, burning, mutilating, branding, imprisonment or hanging. The punishment was in response to any form of disobedience to the laws and policies set up in the plantations even where such disobedience was only perceived. In other cases, punishment was simply a form of reasserting the authority and dominance of slave owners or overseers to threaten the slaves into submission and obedience. The duty to enforce discipline among slaves legally belonged to slave owners and overseers. Moreover, slaves could be punished for not working at the required speed, coming late to the farm, showing signs of dis obeying the authority, or attempting to run away from their masters. Slave masters were personally involved in whipping of the slaves, torturing, or being sold to other plantations where punishment was considered as stiffer. In other cases, slaves were murdered by their masters as a sign of warning to others who were contemplating of disobeying the authority. Women were punished through raping and sexual abuse. They were treated as chattels and properties of their owners and, hence, raping was a justified form of punishment. Children borne out of rape were considered as slaves under the law. As noted by Stephenson, slavery in Louisiana was characterized by rape and other forms of sexual abuse for women slaves. The wives of men, who had disobeyed, could be punished by rape alongside their husbands. Sexual abuse was highly entrenched forms of punishment practiced in the patriarchal Southern part of Louisiana where all women, whether black of white were considered to be properties or chattels of the white masters. Children of slaves borne out of raping were considered as slaves under the law irrespective of the race or status of the father. However, some laws in the South prohibited sexual relationships between black slaves and whites in an effort to maintain the racial purity of the whites. In most cases, the rights of the slaves to defend or seek recourse were not protected under the law and, hence, they could not bring a case against their masters. The housing for slaves consisted of poorly constructed cabins that formed the slave barracks where black slave families lived. They extended the families together to get the approval of a homestead from the authorities where black communities flourished together. Within these homesteads, slaves were allowed to practice small scale farming where they grew crops for family use. In the homesteads, slaves were free to express themselves without the daily interventions of the whites. Subsequently, these homes became not just a place of shelter but also the place where the slaves- majority of whom were of African descent to experience development and self-identity. In the middle of the Antebellum period, there was an increase in the runaway rate of male slaves from Louisiana slave owners. The response by slave owners who a stiffening of the punishment and buying of female slaves who were seen as more loyal than their male counterparts. However, female slaves were not considered as valuable as male slaves but could also be used in sexual escapades rather than their economical ability. Subsequently, the number of female slaves who were bought by slave masters matched that of male slaves with the view of establishing families and stabilizes the runaway behaviors of the male slaves. The lives of slaves in Louisiana during Antebellum period were defined by two features. The first feature was the slaves’ economic potential to the economic system of the region. The lives of slaves revolved around working in plantations and homes of masters and mistresses. To this they were put in barracks and quarters where the living conditions were not only deplorable but also dehumanizing. Slaves were coerced to follow the orders of their masters and mistresses failure to which they were punished. Children of slaves were allowed to play with those of white slave owners especially for slaves that worked and lived in the slave owner’s homestead. However, as they grew up they were absorbed into slavery system where they no longer played together and observed the discriminatory policies that governed their communities. Moreover, when male slaves worked in plantations, they were not given enough food to supplement the need for extra energy to work for long hours. Thus, some of them were suffered from various diseases related with insufficient food intake. The weather conditions were also not favorable to newly arrived slaves who had come from different climate areas. The second feature was the gender structure that defined the entire slavery system. Gender differences formed a basis on which slaves were punished for disobedience, sold on market, and allocated roles in plantations. Male slaves, who disobeyed the orders, were mostly punished by whipping or hanging in extreme cases, they worked in plantation farms digging trenches, planting, cultivating, or harvesting sugarcanes or cotton, they also worked in skilled labor as drivers, mechanics, and machine operators. Female slaves, on the other hand, were punished through raping and whipping. They were not very valuable on the market and, hence, considered as lesser property compared to male slaves. Women slaves also worked in homes as servants and nannies looking after the children of their mistresses. From the above analysis of the lives of slaves during the Antebellum period, it is evident that Louisiana practiced one of the worst forms of slavery in the United States. The lives of the slaves were controlled and manipulated by the wealth slave owners. Such slaves were considered to be the property of their masters and were not entitled to human rights as they are known today. The slaves lived in selected servant quarters that did not have basic amenities. Obedience to the laws and orders was paramount for all slaves. However, in some cases slaves could be punished only as a way of giving a warning to the rest of the slaves who were contemplating on either running away or disobeying their masters. Children of slaves were not allowed togo to schools. Those who lived with their mothers in the homes of masters played together with the children of the mistresses but they were later separated when they grew up. Women worked in homes and cotton plantations with their husbands. They were punished through sexual abuse and rape when they disobeyed the orders of the masters. Slaves were exposed to diseases like malaria, bad weather, and injury in farms. In general, the lives of slaves revolved around the orders of the slave owners and they did not have the freedom to choose what was right for them.