Monday, September 30, 2019

Age Discrimination in Employment Act Essay

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees, or job candidates, on the basis of age. This law covers workers who are 40 years of age and older. An employer must have at least 20 workers to be covered by this law. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act makes it unlawful for an employer to make employment-related decisions based on an employee’s or a prospective employee’s age. Here are several ways in which workers age 40 and above are covered: †¢An employer can’t make hiring decisions based on an applicant’s age and he or she can’t discriminate based on age when recruiting job candidates, advertising for a job or testing applicants. †¢An employer can’t fire a worker because of his age. †¢An employer can’t use age to classify, segregate or limit an employee if this will negatively affect the employee’s status or deprive him or her of opportunities. †¢An employer can’t use age to determine an employee’s pay. †¢An employer can’t deny benefits to an employee because of the employee’s age. In some circumstances, however, the employer may provide reduced benefits to older workers if the cost of providing those reduced benefits matches the cost of providing benefits to a younger worker. In other words, the cost of providing the benefits to older workers and younger workers must be the same. †¢An employee may take age into account when making an employment-related decision only if it is in regard to an authentic qualification necessary for the business’s operation. Age discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) less favorably because of his age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) only forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states do have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination. It is not illegal for an employer or other covered entity to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older.Discrimination can occur when the victim and the person who inflicted the discrimination are both over 40. Age Discrimination & Work Situations The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment. Age Discrimination & Harassment It is unlawful to harass a person because of his or her age. Harassment can include, for example, offensive remarks about a person’s age. Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren’t very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted). The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer. Age Discrimination & Employment Policies/Practices An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of age, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older and is not based on a reasonable factor other than age (RFOA). The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. The ADEA’s protections apply to both employees and job applicants. Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his/her age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments, and training. The ADEA permits employers to favor older workers based on age even when doing so adversely affects a younger worker who is 40 or older. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on age or for filing an age discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under the ADEA. The ADEA applies to employers with 20 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and labor organizations, as well as to the federal government. ADEA protections include: †¢Apprenticeship Programs It is generally unlawful for apprenticeship programs, including joint labor-management apprenticeship programs, to discriminate on the basis of an individual’s age. Age limitations in apprenticeship programs are valid only if they fall within certain specific exceptions under the ADEA or if the EEOC grants a specific exemption. †¢Job Notices and Advertisements The ADEA generally makes it unlawful to include age preferences, limitations, or specifications in job notices or advertisements. A job notice or advertisement may specify an age limit only in the rare circumstances where age is shown to be a â€Å"bona fide occupational qualification† (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business. †¢Pre-Employment Inquiries The ADEA does not specifically prohibit an employer from asking an applicant’s age or date of birth. However, because such inquiries may deter older workers from applying for employment or may otherwise indicate possible intent to discriminate based on age, requests for age information will be closely scrutinized to make sure that the inquiry was made for a lawful purpose, rather than for a purpose prohibited by the ADEA. If the information is needed for a lawful purpose, it can be obtained after the employee is hired. †¢Benefits The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA) amended the ADEA to specifically prohibit employers from denying benefits to older employees. Congress recognized that the cost of providing certain benefits to older workers is greater than the cost of providing those same benefits to younger workers, and that those greater costs might create a disincentive to hire older workers. Therefore, in limited circumstances, an employer may be permitted to reduce benefits based on age, as long as the cost of providing the reduced benefits to older workers is no less than the cost of providing benefits to younger workers. Employers are permitted to coordinate retiree health benefit plans with eligibility for Medicare or a comparable state-sponsored health benefit. †¢Waivers of ADEA Rights An employer may ask an employee to waive his/her rights or claims under the ADEA. Such waivers are common in settling ADEA discrimination claims or in connection with exit incentive or other employment termination programs. However, the ADEA, as amended by OWBPA, sets out specific minimum standards that must be met in order for a waiver to be considered knowing and voluntary and, therefore, valid. Among other requirements, a valid ADEA waiver must: obe in writing and be understandable; ospecifically refer to ADEA rights or claims; onot waive rights or claims that may arise in the future; obe in exchange for valuable consideration in addition to anything of value to which the individual already is entitled; oadvise the individual in writing to consult an attorney before signing the waiver; and oprovide the individual at least 21 days to consider the agreement and at least seven days to revoke the agreement after signing it. If an employer requests an ADEA waiver in connection with an exit incentive or other employment termination program, the minimum requirements for a valid waiver are more extensive. See Understanding Waivers of Discrimination Claims in Employee Severance Agreements† at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_severance-agreements.html

Sunday, September 29, 2019

For rich and poor in Russia Essay

I leaned my back on my big black chair. The cushion, now deep and saggy, still feels comfortable. It has been ten long years of sitting on the same chair yet I can still feel its soft leather and now dilapidated covers. This high-back chair has been with me since day one. It surely has witnessed countless heated arguments with my staff, serious conversations with directors, even termination scenes with employees. Today, as I am about to make the biggest decision for the company, the chair will once more bear witness to my decision-making. So I reached for the topmost document from a pile of white papers on my desk. This was from yesterday’s presentation. It read, â€Å"Strategy for Expansion,† with bold letters that seemed to be screaming at me. Yes, after ten long years of doing business, we have finally decided to widen our horizons and look for other markets to tap into. I stretched my feet under the table, putting back the document I sighed and asked myself, â€Å"Are we ready to do this? † â€Å"Sir, everyone is waiting for you in the boardroom,† my secretary interrupted. This is just one of the vivid scenes recurring to me whenever I think about my future career. Indeed I aspire to sit on the manager’s chair of a successful company in my home country of Russia. Yet the road towards that aspiration is long and bumpy, not to mention competitive and challenging especially in today’s business world. As this is the case, I deem that I need top-notch and excellent education and rigid practical training from a prestigious educational institution. Hence, I have chosen the European School of Economics to major in International Business. Primarily, I regard that an international learning environment offered by ESE is crucial in today’s competitive business world so as to prepare and train me in building a career in business especially in this time of globalization. Since ESE is home to students of different nationalities and allows free movement between the centers in London, New York, Rome, Milan, and Florence, I am certain to experience a dynamic, interesting, and challenging academic environment necessary in today’s competitive atmosphere of business. ESE will further hone my skills and strengthen my knowledge in preparation for my entry into the global marketplace by providing practical training or real-life application of business theories and perspectives through exposure and involvement in creating strategic plans, managing international projects, and addressing various challenges in today’s global business environment. Evidence of ESE’s capacity to do this is the myriad of graduates who are the movers and shakers in the business field occupying positions in management, organizational operations, marketing, and customer care, among others. Another testament to ESE’s ability to educate me excellently are the recognitions it has received. In fact, ESE programs have been validated by the highest ranked university by British students and the only independent university in the United Kingdom, the University of Buckingham. It is also accredited by the British Accreditation Council. Furthermore, I have been drawn to ESE’s philosophy of not just assisting students in choosing a career that suits them but more so encouraging them to fulfill their goals by chasing their dreams and doing what they love. This kind of encouraging environment will definitely ease the stress and pressures attached with higher education, not to mention bring fun and active spirit amidst academic requirements. Moreover, another significant factor in choosing ESE is its revered internship program. Since the school has established relationships with successful global companies, I am guaranteed to gain the needed exposure and adequate training necessary before entering the real business world. Particularly in my chosen major where I will be exposed to three internship placements, I will have the opportunity to explore which field I may be good at, to assess my own skills for future practice, and to earn the trust and confidence of employers for future employment options. Above all, I have chosen ESE, particularly the Bachelor’s Degree in International Business because of the quality of education that I will receive should I be accepted in the said program. Included in this quality education are the analytical and critical thinking skills that I will acquire, which will aid me in future organizational decisions. Furthermore, the kind of learning I will gain in the said program will give me a deep comprehension of the global business environment and the different factors that influence investment, trade, and the economy, thereby allowing me to come up with strategic business plans in the future. In addition, an ESE education will further strengthen my communication skills crucial in local and international business transactions and dealings as well as develop my creativity and flexibility in responding to various challenges that face the business environment. Because of all these qualities, I aspire to be one of the students to be educated with an ESE education. However, this education will not just be for me but for my country as well. As a Russian native, I have seen the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Though everyone seems to be climbing up the ladder of economic progress, the rich people continue to become richer very quickly and as a result, the gap continues to expand (Arvedlund, 2005). Hence, as someone with business and economic knowledge, I dream of working in an area where I can help bridge this gap – the supermarket industry. In 2001, it was only forecasted that supermarkets will gain momentum in Russia as the demand for food caused by the increasing purchasing power of Russians skyrocketed. In the past though, supermarkets were known to be exclusively high-income shopping places while outside markets are pictures of low and middle class shopping (Kozlov, 2001). While supermarkets provide all the conveniences of shopping, the prices of goods are high; while local stores’ prices are low, the quality of products is poor. Moreover, it was reported in 2008 that foreign supermarkets are beginning to expand their markets by establishing outlets in Russia, particularly in Moscow. Majority of these supermarket giants have been household names in developed nations. Their goal is to target consumers with a growing dispensable income by combining high quality products and low prices (Bentley, 2008). However, what I am aiming for is an all original Russian supermarket merging the features of a supermarket and a local store. My long-term professional dream is to establish a chain of supermarkets characterized by high standard goods, convenient shopping, low prices, and authentically Russian ambiance, where everyone regardless of income can enjoy shopping. After some time when the company has been established and have enough profits to sustain the business and even to venture out in other endeavors, we will expand to include charity work in our goals. This social responsibility is one aspect that many Russian companies seem to neglect. Hence, this dream will somehow decrease the gap between the rich and the poor and in a way support the less-fortunate to climb up the economic ladder quickly. Moreover, it is this very dream that inspired me to pursue a career in business; majoring in International Business in ESE is the first step towards this. Indeed the primary role of businesses, whether small, medium, or large, and local or international, is to create products and services and sell these to communities to gain profit for wealth creation in society (International Organization of Employers, 2005). How to effectively and efficiently achieve this purpose is what aspiring businessmen like me wish to study and master. The principles of marketing, various business methods, economics, business law and ethical practice, management and organization, and finance – these are just few elements that businesses need to take into consideration on their way to making profit. Yet beyond money matters, businesses have ventured out to include social responsibility and accountability to community as part of their strategy. For instance, businesses have sought to advance the quality of life like McDonald’s advocating for animal welfare, education of youth, clean environment, and charitable efforts (McDonalds, 2010). Moreover, businesses have also used their resources to embed social responsibility in their goods and services as in Vodafone’s Mpesa program in Kenya that enables people to do mobile banking and the content-filtering system the company incorporated for parents and children’s protection (Demos, 2006). If these companies successfully accomplished these endeavors, then it will not be impossible for the others to follow suit. Hence, I aim to do just that in my future business. To do this, I will apply my experience in interacting with different types of culture that I gained from living in several countries. Likewise, I will use my skills in developing relationships and working in groups to expand my business, develop ethical approaches in doing business, and incorporate charitable programs that will foster a symbiotic relationship between my business and the community or society. Since there are problems ahead, the analytical knowledge that business education will equip will come in handy. Nonetheless, this analytical approach will not only be applicable within the bounds of business but outside the business world as well. For instance, the lessons learned from economics, finance, and marketing will enable me to become an intelligent consumer. Moreover, the values taught by management and organization will help me manage my time and organize my schedule. In addition, the values acquired from business law and ethics will support my personal judgment and decisions in life and at work. Needless to say, I am fit to achieve all these through an ESE education because I am a hard worker and a leader. Testament to this is my experience working in the marketing department of a shoe company. Though a greenhorn, I was immediately tasked to handle the marketing plan for the newest line of rubber shoes. Together with the team, I looked into previous plans from the department and examined the core values of the company. I then gathered them and brainstormed on what marketing strategy would be best for the new shoe line. I assigned each member a task that includes researching the marketing environment, reviewing past marketing activities, studying the company’s marketing system, and devising methods to analyze marketing plan’s effectiveness. With all our inputs, we were able to come up with a solid strategy, which the company used to introduce the new product to the market. From this work experience, I showcased my leadership and management abilities to produce good results. I was also able to display responsibility, meticulousness, organization, and ability to work well with others to ensure that the task assigned to me was smooth sailing from beginning to end. All these qualities will come in handy in the real global competitive business world. Nonetheless, my life is not all work and business. I also use my time doing fun activities such as swimming and yoga, both of which ease my mind from the pressures of school, work, and personal life. In my spare time, I read books and newspapers. I find current events, politics, history, and business the most interesting topics to read about as they give me awareness of past and present events that shape people and ultimately influence their decisions and actions. Furthermore, I also devote my time in volunteer work. In fact, I was recently in Tijuana, Mexico to help build houses for homeless families in the said area and also in the reservation in Taos, New Mexico to immerse myself in the Pueblo culture together with Pueblo school children. I have likewise participated in the Walk to Cure Diabetes in San Francisco, CA for a number of times. The said experiences deepened my understanding of different kinds of people and made me appreciate life more. They also inspired me to do more for the community and society as there are many people who need help, care, and attention. Therefore, in the future, I wish to extend my hand to the underprivileged and unnoticed sectors of society. Before doing this though, I wish to earn my master’s degree to strengthen the undergraduate education I will acquire. This way, my dream of establishing and managing a solely Russian-based company will be easier to achieve. Additionally, earning a master’s degree will make me a more effective leader and manager bringing a Western style of conducting business, which I believe is more efficient when applied in the Russian environment. The higher degree will also strengthen the knowledge and skills I gained from studying in various parts of the world and from interacting with different cultures in bringing a global and efficient approach to the company and in promoting charity and community work as an integral component in today’s business world. So I stared at my secretary for a couple of minutes and then she said, â€Å"Sir, is there something wrong? Everyone is waiting.. † I did not let her finish and instead I asked, â€Å"Do you think it is time for me to buy a new chair? † â€Å"I most certainly think so, Sir. † With that, I already know what decision to deliver in the boardroom. References Arvedlund, E. E. (2005). For rich and poor in Russia, gap widens. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes. com/2005/04/26/business/worldbusiness/26iht-ruble. html? _r=2 Bentley, E. (2008). Supermarket giants check out Russia. The Moscow News. Retrieved from http://www. mn. ru/business/20080904/55345070. html Demos, T. (2006). Beyond the bottom line: Our second annual ranking of Global 500 companies. CNN. Retrieved from http://money. cnn. com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391850/index. htm International Organization of Employers. (2005). The role of business within society: Position paper. Geneva: International Organization of Employers. 1-10. Kozlov, V. (2001). Supermarkets gain momentum in Moscow. The Russia Journal. Retrieved from http://www. russiajournal. com/node/5018 McDonalds. (2010). Values in action. Retrieved from http://www. mcdonalds. com/us/en/our_story/values_in_action. html

Saturday, September 28, 2019

12 Angry Men

2. At the beginning of this movie the jurors vote 11 to 1 to convict the defendant and send him to death for murder; yet by the end of the movie they vote to acquit him, to set him free. What are the events that led the jurors to change their minds so radically and set the defendant free ? Describe the process. 1)The knife could be bought or have been found by anyone 2)The murderer knew how to use a pocket knife and the count have known. 3)When they re-enact the old man walking/limping from his bed to the door outside it takes them more then 15 seconds to get to the outside door. And the old man swore it had taken him 15 seconds. 4)The old man and the lady say that they heard the boy screaming at his father saying â€Å"I’ll kill you† but that doesn’t really mean he actually killed him since people say that phrase all the time but don’t really mean it and that was proved when juror number three has and outburst and say’s â€Å"I’ll kill you† to juror number eight. 5)How could the old man and the lady have heard the boy screaming when you can’t even hear yourself thinking over the el train. )The jurors start doubting the lady’s eyesight since she did not have her glasses on and maybe just assumed that it was the boy staying his father. 3. Why is juror number nine (old Man) a real hero ? Explain this using examples. 1)Because he is the first to agree with juror number eight , deciding that there is not enough evidence to sentence the young boy to death. 2)He openly describes juror number ten’ s racist attitude. 3)When he agrees that the old man could have maybe justified to what he heard and saw the night of the murder so he’s name could be recognized. 4. Explain number three’s anger against the accused. He’s anger towards the accused is because he’s relationship whit his son was very similar to the accused and the defendant. So based on the fact that he hasn’t seen his son in the past two years and the negative relationship he’s had with him he decides to declare the accused guilty because he thinks that the boy dose not deserve to live because he killed his own father. 5. Explain the impact of the closing scene in the jury room between number eight and three. Juror number three breaks down after his outburst while every one is leaving juror number eight stays back and tries to console him without communication. . Explain the following (refers to the play). a) â€Å"Innocent until proven guilty† Until you have no strong evidence against the accused, the accused is declared guilty. b) â€Å"Reasonable doubt† Something that could possibly prove the accused guilty. c) â€Å"Burden of proof† The biggest/important proof to prove the accuse d guilty or not guilty. 7. Explain the title. The title explained how these twelve men are frustrated and stressed and have this burden of declaring the accused guilty or not guilty. 12 Angry Men After hours of deliberation, the jurors reached the decision that the boy is not guilty, due to the fact of reasonable doubt. While few jurors are motivated by their respect and determination for the justice system, Juror 10 is motivated by his personal prejudice. Juror 10 is clearly motivated by his prejudice. He uses his intolerance to determine his vote for the accused defendant. For instance, in the beginning of Act I, Juror 10 haphazardly said, â€Å" Look at the kind of people they are, you know them,† (13) without even digging deep into the case. It is quite obvious that Juror 10 is generating an â€Å"opinion† of the defendant based on the color of his skin and his background. He does not refer to them as regular people, but as â€Å"they† and â€Å"them† on certain pages. In the courtroom though, no juror is to have any judgments, they are supposed to bring the facts to the table, not their opinions. Juror 10’s outlook of the defendant is blinding him from thinking of any reasonable doubt. Further more, when Juror 10 said, â€Å"†¦I lived among em’ all my life, you can’t believe a word they say. You know that,† he yet again was referring to the defendant’s people as â€Å"em† and â€Å"they†. You can clearly infer that while Juror 10 was living amongst them, he must have experienced or witnessed situations which has caused him to have judgments on these specific people. These same judgments he brings to the courtroom just add difficulty into solving the case. Following Juror 10’s views further, when Juror 5 was explaining how the person who did stab the father was un-experienced, but the defendant was indeed experienced and Juror 3 stated he didn’t believe it, Juror 10 responded with, â€Å"Neither do I. You’re giving us a lot of mumbo-jumbo. † (56) His racist views of the one accused once again got in the way and made him think differently on what Juror 3 had said. Juror 10 didn’t even bother thinking the idea through! A reasonable person would have at least deliberated instead of just shutting down the thought completely. In addition to that thought, as the other jurors are realizing that there is reasonable doubt and changing their votes from guilty to not guilty, Juror 10’s temper begins to rise. His reaction to the other jurors for not agreeing with his opinion results to him throwing a rampage. He ends up screaming at the top of his lungs and thinking of everything he can possibly say to make the rest of the jurors side with him. But the only response he receives from the jurors is as they turn away from him in disgust. After Juror 10 gets his racist opinions across, he realizes he simply cannot win this fight. His judgmental views of the defendant blocked any potential thought Juror 10 would have had if he went in to the courtroom with an open mind. Juror 10 stands out to the reader for his extreme prejudice look at the defendant and his culture. With out giving the case a glance, he already created an unchangeable opinion. From his view, Juror 10 doesn’t think of â€Å"them† as regular people, but as these animals who get away with every crime they commit. Also his extremely prejudiced opinions made him resistant from â€Å"separating the facts from the fancy. † One of the largest issues in our justice system is when jurors already have generated an opinion on the defendant, where as Juror 10 clearly did, which then causes the final vote to be affected. All in all, if the members of the court went into the jury room with an open mind we would most likely have more proved innocent cases in today’s society. It has been at least 60 years since the drama â€Å"Twelve Angry Men† was written. And even today, do we really believe all men and women were created equal? 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men 2. At the beginning of this movie the jurors vote 11 to 1 to convict the defendant and send him to death for murder; yet by the end of the movie they vote to acquit him, to set him free. What are the events that led the jurors to change their minds so radically and set the defendant free ? Describe the process. 1)The knife could be bought or have been found by anyone 2)The murderer knew how to use a pocket knife and the count have known. 3)When they re-enact the old man walking/limping from his bed to the door outside it takes them more then 15 seconds to get to the outside door. And the old man swore it had taken him 15 seconds. 4)The old man and the lady say that they heard the boy screaming at his father saying â€Å"I’ll kill you† but that doesn’t really mean he actually killed him since people say that phrase all the time but don’t really mean it and that was proved when juror number three has and outburst and say’s â€Å"I’ll kill you† to juror number eight. 5)How could the old man and the lady have heard the boy screaming when you can’t even hear yourself thinking over the el train. )The jurors start doubting the lady’s eyesight since she did not have her glasses on and maybe just assumed that it was the boy staying his father. 3. Why is juror number nine (old Man) a real hero ? Explain this using examples. 1)Because he is the first to agree with juror number eight , deciding that there is not enough evidence to sentence the young boy to death. 2)He openly describes juror number ten’ s racist attitude. 3)When he agrees that the old man could have maybe justified to what he heard and saw the night of the murder so he’s name could be recognized. 4. Explain number three’s anger against the accused. He’s anger towards the accused is because he’s relationship whit his son was very similar to the accused and the defendant. So based on the fact that he hasn’t seen his son in the past two years and the negative relationship he’s had with him he decides to declare the accused guilty because he thinks that the boy dose not deserve to live because he killed his own father. 5. Explain the impact of the closing scene in the jury room between number eight and three. Juror number three breaks down after his outburst while every one is leaving juror number eight stays back and tries to console him without communication. . Explain the following (refers to the play). a) â€Å"Innocent until proven guilty† Until you have no strong evidence against the accused, the accused is declared guilty. b) â€Å"Reasonable doubt† Something that could possibly prove the accused guilty. c) â€Å"Burden of proof† The biggest/important proof to prove the accuse d guilty or not guilty. 7. Explain the title. The title explained how these twelve men are frustrated and stressed and have this burden of declaring the accused guilty or not guilty. 12 angry men 12 Angry Men tells the story of twelve jurors thrust together in a hot and humid room on a New York summer evening to deliberate on the guilt or innocence of an eighteen year old Hispanic boy with a troubled past.   He is accused of stabbing his father; a man with whom he has had a contentious relationship for years.   The accused is fighting an uphill battle towards an acquittal: the eye witness account of his neighbors, a court appointed public defender whose apathy towards this case is mirrored by more than one of the jurors and his race which seems to be a major strike against him in the mind of some of the jurors, specifically juror #10. From the onset, it seems like an open and shut case with the accused being sentenced to death for the murder of his father. But if that were the case, 12 Angry Men, with its study of human contrasts, inconsistencies and prejudices, would have been long forgotten. Instead, 12 Angry Men is a testament to the notion that standing up for ones beliefs that have come from an unbiased and methodical overview of the facts, even if those beliefs are contrary to the vocal majority, is honorable and that such prejudices which cloud those facts are an impediment to every citizen in a democratic society. Being forced to listen to six days of testimony while at the same time being paid only three dollars a day for their services, it is easy to see how some or most of the jurors at the beginning of deliberations, seemed apathetic towards the great responsibility they have to give the accused their undivided attention while deciding his guilt or innocence. This is the case for a number of jurors; specifically juror #7 who is preoccupied with making the Yankee/Indians game later that day. He feels rushed by the proceedings and desires quick deliberations followed by a unanimous guilty vote. He feels that the accused is guilty but most likely would have voted the way of the majority if that meant that he could have gone to the game, gone home or just been anywhere other than in the courtroom for any additional length of time.   He does not see and cannot be affectively reminded about the awesome power he has to either put a man to death or to set him free. The issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused should be paramount in his mind but sadly, it is not. Juror #5 is not the only one who shrinks from his responsibility. Juror #12, the well dressed and jovial salesman feels that the accused is guilty but when pressed to explain his reasoning, cannot and quickly changes his mind when pressured to do so. Juror #12 is preoccupied with his job and maintaining a light atmosphere in the jury room; almost oblivious to the matter at hand.   Juror #2 is in many ways, the same as juror #12 except for the fact that his personality is not nearly as outgoing but in the same way, lacks convictions and is content to go with the crowd. He does not take his civic duty seriously and is afraid to stand up against the crowd unlike juror #8; the lone dissenter at the beginning of the film. Also, juror #2 does not seem to be able to explain why he feels that the accused is either innocent or guilty. This is contrary to jurors #3,#4 and #10 who at the start of the movie, have no qualms about putting the accused to death and detailing exactly whey they feel that the boy should be worthy of such a fate. The remaining three holdouts all have different reasons why they think the boy is guilty; some are legitimate concerns while others are rooted in prejudice against the poor and minorities. Although misguided, the above mentioned jurors had the conviction to state specifically why they thought what they did and to be perfectly willing for a time and to stand up to what is becoming a numerous and vocal majority as the movie progresses. Jurors #2, and #10 are either too preoccupied to be bothered by the tremendous power they have over the accused, or are too timid and will go with the majority. For that reason, he is among the jurors that did not take their civic responsibility as seriously as they needed to. Jurors #5, #9 and of course #8 are polar opposites of the above mentioned jurors.   At the beginning of the film, only juror #8 votes for the innocence of the accused.   Or rather there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused in his mind. But juror #8, by his own admission, reluctantly stands alone in defiance to the other eleven jurors. He does not do this while void of fear. It is seen on his face, in his mannerisms and even when he is willing to vote with the majority if after a short deliberation and a second vote, he is still the lone dissenter. Juror #8 is skeptical about many aspects of this boy’s life; his childhood and especially the system that would allow such a boy to fall through the cracks and almost invite this type of behavior (had be been guilty) and feels that an intense and methodical discussion is warranted before he is to vote for the guilt and subsequent death of a fellow human being. This type of moral fortitude, courage and attention to duty goes rewarded by juror #9; the oldest juror who once he has a companion, has no trouble standing up to the intense verbal ridicule of the majority, specifically juror #3,#7,#10. By this act, the group process’s momentum slowly starts to shift away from rendering a guilty verdict to instead empowering those timid jurors who have doubt as to the guilt of the accused but were too afraid to speak as they knew that they could not handle the onslaught levied against them by jurors #3 and #10. The jury room consists of polar opposites when it comes to their fulfillment of their duty in this matter. It is not the specific vote that they cast that makes them the most different, but in the way that they came to that decision. Each juror possessed a different decision making process concerning how they voted, how quickly they changed their vote and how resistant others were to let â€Å"one of them† go free. It is very rare for twelve different people to be completely impartial and void of any prejudices. This was the case especially for juror #3. He is the last of the jurors to change his vote to not guilty and in order for him to do so, a great deal of internal and personal problems and frustrations must be overcome for him to change his vote. Juror #3 is a traditional, hard nosed individual who taught himself to be tough as well as his son, remarking that when his only son was nine and walked away from a fight, it make him sick and he resolved to make a man out of his son. At the time of the trial, his son is twenty two and it is safe to say that they have a contentious relationship for the past few years. The son, most likely, resisted the intense tactics of his father and they have not spoken in years.   This has caused the father a great deal of pain and this pain served as the main source of the father’s hatred for the accused.   Juror #3 sees a correlation between the accused and his son and exerts little effort to disguise that bias. The accused had a troubled relationship with has father as well. Juror #3 sees both the accused and his son as being ungrateful to their fathers and feels that there should be consequences for this disrespect. He seems to have no power over his son for if he did, they would be reconciled or at least there would be visits between them. But he does have power over the accused to put him to death for what his hatred tells him that the boy must obviously be guilty.   The accused stands for everything that juror #3 hates and coupled with his tough exterior, is the last to submit to letting the accused go free. On the opposite end of the spectrum are jurors #11, 5 and 8. Juror #11 is a watch maker from Eastern Europe. Even though he is Caucasian, he is conscious of his ethnicity and the prejudices that come with being from a different country. He sympathizes with the accused and how his ethnic background puts him at a disadvantage in almost every aspect of daily life in 1950’s America. At the beginning of the movie, he agrees with the majority regarding the guilt of the accused but the racist generalizations made by jurors #7 and 10 are very effective in showing   juror #11 that there are certain prejudices in play that need to be examined. Along with the methodical explanation by juror #8, the watchmaker changes his vote to not guilty and does not waver for the rest of the movie despite intense pressure from juror #7 and #10 to convince him of the contrary and to play on the fears the watchmaker has of being different. Also motivated by the obvious shift in the group process away from the ideology that encourages a guilty verdict, the above mentioned jurors do all that they can to slow the momentum.   The way in which the watchmaker comes to his decisions in a non biased, sympathetic and dutiful process and is willing to absorb ridicule against the prejudices of jurors # 3 and 10; some of the same prejudices which force them to be the last to change their vote, is honorable and worthy of mention; second only to that of juror #8, the lone dissenter. The movie wastes no time in pointing out who will emerge the leaders in the jury room. One would think that naturally, the foreman would be selected as the leader and that the proceeding would be run under his watchful eye.   But that is not the case. The foreman has no such ambition and is quick to offer his seat to anyone who thinks that they might be able to do a better job once an argument arises on how the deliberations would be conducted. By the simple yet courageous action of juror #8 to vote not guilty by a show of hands, while knowing that such an action would be the source of ridicule, quickly makes him as one of the leaders in the jury room. Juror #8 becomes the leader by not only being the sole dissenter in the face of ridicule but in the way that he reacts to that ridicule; through a quiet, confident and respectful resolve which earns him not only respect from people who are not used to such treatment, but also converts to his call for a complete examination of the facts. It is this unbiased and caring demeanor that helps his argument to have legitimacy unlike the boisterous juror #3 and #10 whose demeanor steadily helps them to lose converts until they are the only ones left. On the other end of the spectrum are jurors #3 and #10. It is obvious that they have ulterior motives in seeing the accused gets the electric chair.   They are tough on crime, short on compassion and frequent on racist generalizations which cloud their mind and sour their soul with such hatful rhetoric. These prejudices come busting out towards the end of the movie when jurors #3 and #10 are the most desperate as they are now left alone with the intense eyes of jurors who at the beginning of their deliberations, supported their discriminatory ideology by voting for the guilt of the accused. Once the support has been eroded, their actions, like the actions of juror#3, set them apart as they infamously emerge as the other leaders in the jury room. The fact that juror #3 allows his frustrations with his son to come into play with his judgment towards the guilt of the accused and that he his mannerisms are so over the top, helps him emerge as the other main leader in the jury room. His prejudice lies in the age of the accused being close to that of his own son with whom he has had a troubled relationship and a troubled past. Juror #3 may or may not hate his son but he is very discouraged and displeased with the way that things have gone in their relationship and vents his frustration towards the accused. The prejudice of juror #10 lies not in the age of the accused by rather in his race. The accused is a Latino who grew up in the poor tenements of New York where crime runs rampant and juror #10 feels that the accused is guilty by association since he came from such squalor and with a troubled past. However, juror #10 is not nearly as vocal in his suspicion of juror #5 who grew up in a similar atmosphere simply because the juror is white. It is more the race of the accused than where he grew up that seems to motivate juror #10 into the assumption that the boy is guilty. At first, it is the outspoken demeanor of juror #10 that helps to set him apart from the other jurors in a leadership role. But his leadership emerges in more infamous ways as he vocalizes his racist assumptions of the accused in one final and desperate outburst as he desperately tried to win back converts to his cause. He uses such words as â€Å"those people† and â€Å"you know how they are† and finally, the accused is â€Å"one of them.† The phrases are used at the beginning of the movie and assumed as fact in the mind of juror #10 mostly due to the fact that his only opposition is from juror #8 who is not being taken seriously and is no threat to him. However, when the group process shows that juror #10 is in a shrinking majority and will soon be a lone standout, along with juror #3, the same phrases are used desperately but to no avail. The main source for the drama in the jury room is the requirement that their decision must be unanimous. If for the simple fact that everyone must be in agreement in either sending the accused to his death or setting him free, there would have been no screenplay to begin with. The jurors might have argued the merits of the case but with there being no need for a unanimous decision, juror #8 would have known that unless he could win six more converts in what would have to be a short amount of time, the deliberations would soon be over. The ulterior motives of jurors #3 and #10 would never have seen the light of day. The lack of conviction displayed by jurors #1 #2 and #12 would never had been recognized and the heroic actions of juror #8 and to a lesser extent juror #9, would never had sparked such heated yet important and necessary debate within the jury room. Every man left the jury room a little different than when they first came. Jurors #2, #5, #11 and #12 may have been emboldened in their private lives and to let future injustices not slide as easily as they may have had in the past. Jurors #3, #10 and to a lesser extent #7, recognized their prejudices and may have exerted some effort to confront these problems. The phrase â€Å"group process† refers to the behavior of people in groups, such as task groups that are trying to solve a problem or make a decision. 12 Angry Men has numerous and obvious examples of group process. It is the fact that twelve men must come to a unanimous decision that such examples can be shown. If there were only one or two jurors and/or a unanimous decision did not have to be achieved, any aspect of group process would have been absent. The jurors can be grouped into three main groups: those who are strongly in favor of giving the accused the electric chair, those who are willing to go along with the majority and those who are strongly in favor of being oblivious from the glaring prejudices and racist assumptions and quickly latch onto the moralist; juror #8 and then #9. Jurors #2 #5 and #11 are beneficiaries of group process.   They cannot do alone what is made easier in a group once jurors #8 and #9 have voted for the innocence of the accused. Alone, they could never have done what #8 and #9 had done: stand up to vocal ridicule and to do it alone. But once the first step has been made towards an attempt to judge the facts and not the race, age or background of the accused, jurors #2, #5 and #11 are relieved to vote their consciousness instead of giving into the pressure levied against them by specifically jurors #3 #4 and #10. The negative aspects of group process would have been guilty for defective decision making if it hadn’t been for the fact that juror #8 has the courage to vote for the innocence of the accused. 12 Angry Men will continue to stand the test of time since it speaks eloquently on many different areas: that prejudices are an impediment to everyone in a democratic society and that standing up for a belief, despite knowing the dangers of such a stand, is honorable and should be recognized as courageous. But also, people do in groups what they wouldn’t do in private. Individuality within a group of strong opinions comes at a price and that price is most often ridicule and misunderstanding. If at the beginning of the movie, the foreman had taken a secret vote, juror #8 may not have been the lone dissenter. The jurors that did not put a great deal of value in the democratic process of trial by jury and didn’t feel that a daily salary of $3 was not worthy of their methodical analysis of the facts, were content to go with the majority, no matter what that decision said. But for the jurors who made it a point to shift group process away from a guilty verdict based on racist assumptions and in light of strong ridicule and little monetary compensation, this movie will continue to be studied and appreciated for years to come. 12 angry men 12 Angry Men tells the story of twelve jurors thrust together in a hot and humid room on a New York summer evening to deliberate on the guilt or innocence of an eighteen year old Hispanic boy with a troubled past.   He is accused of stabbing his father; a man with whom he has had a contentious relationship for years.   The accused is fighting an uphill battle towards an acquittal: the eye witness account of his neighbors, a court appointed public defender whose apathy towards this case is mirrored by more than one of the jurors and his race which seems to be a major strike against him in the mind of some of the jurors, specifically juror #10. From the onset, it seems like an open and shut case with the accused being sentenced to death for the murder of his father. But if that were the case, 12 Angry Men, with its study of human contrasts, inconsistencies and prejudices, would have been long forgotten. Instead, 12 Angry Men is a testament to the notion that standing up for ones beliefs that have come from an unbiased and methodical overview of the facts, even if those beliefs are contrary to the vocal majority, is honorable and that such prejudices which cloud those facts are an impediment to every citizen in a democratic society. Being forced to listen to six days of testimony while at the same time being paid only three dollars a day for their services, it is easy to see how some or most of the jurors at the beginning of deliberations, seemed apathetic towards the great responsibility they have to give the accused their undivided attention while deciding his guilt or innocence. This is the case for a number of jurors; specifically juror #7 who is preoccupied with making the Yankee/Indians game later that day. He feels rushed by the proceedings and desires quick deliberations followed by a unanimous guilty vote. He feels that the accused is guilty but most likely would have voted the way of the majority if that meant that he could have gone to the game, gone home or just been anywhere other than in the courtroom for any additional length of time.   He does not see and cannot be affectively reminded about the awesome power he has to either put a man to death or to set him free. The issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused should be paramount in his mind but sadly, it is not. Juror #5 is not the only one who shrinks from his responsibility. Juror #12, the well dressed and jovial salesman feels that the accused is guilty but when pressed to explain his reasoning, cannot and quickly changes his mind when pressured to do so. Juror #12 is preoccupied with his job and maintaining a light atmosphere in the jury room; almost oblivious to the matter at hand.   Juror #2 is in many ways, the same as juror #12 except for the fact that his personality is not nearly as outgoing but in the same way, lacks convictions and is content to go with the crowd. He does not take his civic duty seriously and is afraid to stand up against the crowd unlike juror #8; the lone dissenter at the beginning of the film. Also, juror #2 does not seem to be able to explain why he feels that the accused is either innocent or guilty. This is contrary to jurors #3,#4 and #10 who at the start of the movie, have no qualms about putting the accused to death and detailing exactly whey they feel that the boy should be worthy of such a fate. The remaining three holdouts all have different reasons why they think the boy is guilty; some are legitimate concerns while others are rooted in prejudice against the poor and minorities. Although misguided, the above mentioned jurors had the conviction to state specifically why they thought what they did and to be perfectly willing for a time and to stand up to what is becoming a numerous and vocal majority as the movie progresses. Jurors #2, and #10 are either too preoccupied to be bothered by the tremendous power they have over the accused, or are too timid and will go with the majority. For that reason, he is among the jurors that did not take their civic responsibility as seriously as they needed to. Jurors #5, #9 and of course #8 are polar opposites of the above mentioned jurors.   At the beginning of the film, only juror #8 votes for the innocence of the accused.   Or rather there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused in his mind. But juror #8, by his own admission, reluctantly stands alone in defiance to the other eleven jurors. He does not do this while void of fear. It is seen on his face, in his mannerisms and even when he is willing to vote with the majority if after a short deliberation and a second vote, he is still the lone dissenter. Juror #8 is skeptical about many aspects of this boy’s life; his childhood and especially the system that would allow such a boy to fall through the cracks and almost invite this type of behavior (had be been guilty) and feels that an intense and methodical discussion is warranted before he is to vote for the guilt and subsequent death of a fellow human being. This type of moral fortitude, courage and attention to duty goes rewarded by juror #9; the oldest juror who once he has a companion, has no trouble standing up to the intense verbal ridicule of the majority, specifically juror #3,#7,#10. By this act, the group process’s momentum slowly starts to shift away from rendering a guilty verdict to instead empowering those timid jurors who have doubt as to the guilt of the accused but were too afraid to speak as they knew that they could not handle the onslaught levied against them by jurors #3 and #10. The jury room consists of polar opposites when it comes to their fulfillment of their duty in this matter. It is not the specific vote that they cast that makes them the most different, but in the way that they came to that decision. Each juror possessed a different decision making process concerning how they voted, how quickly they changed their vote and how resistant others were to let â€Å"one of them† go free. It is very rare for twelve different people to be completely impartial and void of any prejudices. This was the case especially for juror #3. He is the last of the jurors to change his vote to not guilty and in order for him to do so, a great deal of internal and personal problems and frustrations must be overcome for him to change his vote. Juror #3 is a traditional, hard nosed individual who taught himself to be tough as well as his son, remarking that when his only son was nine and walked away from a fight, it make him sick and he resolved to make a man out of his son. At the time of the trial, his son is twenty two and it is safe to say that they have a contentious relationship for the past few years. The son, most likely, resisted the intense tactics of his father and they have not spoken in years.   This has caused the father a great deal of pain and this pain served as the main source of the father’s hatred for the accused.   Juror #3 sees a correlation between the accused and his son and exerts little effort to disguise that bias. The accused had a troubled relationship with has father as well. Juror #3 sees both the accused and his son as being ungrateful to their fathers and feels that there should be consequences for this disrespect. He seems to have no power over his son for if he did, they would be reconciled or at least there would be visits between them. But he does have power over the accused to put him to death for what his hatred tells him that the boy must obviously be guilty.   The accused stands for everything that juror #3 hates and coupled with his tough exterior, is the last to submit to letting the accused go free. On the opposite end of the spectrum are jurors #11, 5 and 8. Juror #11 is a watch maker from Eastern Europe. Even though he is Caucasian, he is conscious of his ethnicity and the prejudices that come with being from a different country. He sympathizes with the accused and how his ethnic background puts him at a disadvantage in almost every aspect of daily life in 1950’s America. At the beginning of the movie, he agrees with the majority regarding the guilt of the accused but the racist generalizations made by jurors #7 and 10 are very effective in showing   juror #11 that there are certain prejudices in play that need to be examined. Along with the methodical explanation by juror #8, the watchmaker changes his vote to not guilty and does not waver for the rest of the movie despite intense pressure from juror #7 and #10 to convince him of the contrary and to play on the fears the watchmaker has of being different. Also motivated by the obvious shift in the group process away from the ideology that encourages a guilty verdict, the above mentioned jurors do all that they can to slow the momentum.   The way in which the watchmaker comes to his decisions in a non biased, sympathetic and dutiful process and is willing to absorb ridicule against the prejudices of jurors # 3 and 10; some of the same prejudices which force them to be the last to change their vote, is honorable and worthy of mention; second only to that of juror #8, the lone dissenter. The movie wastes no time in pointing out who will emerge the leaders in the jury room. One would think that naturally, the foreman would be selected as the leader and that the proceeding would be run under his watchful eye.   But that is not the case. The foreman has no such ambition and is quick to offer his seat to anyone who thinks that they might be able to do a better job once an argument arises on how the deliberations would be conducted. By the simple yet courageous action of juror #8 to vote not guilty by a show of hands, while knowing that such an action would be the source of ridicule, quickly makes him as one of the leaders in the jury room. Juror #8 becomes the leader by not only being the sole dissenter in the face of ridicule but in the way that he reacts to that ridicule; through a quiet, confident and respectful resolve which earns him not only respect from people who are not used to such treatment, but also converts to his call for a complete examination of the facts. It is this unbiased and caring demeanor that helps his argument to have legitimacy unlike the boisterous juror #3 and #10 whose demeanor steadily helps them to lose converts until they are the only ones left. On the other end of the spectrum are jurors #3 and #10. It is obvious that they have ulterior motives in seeing the accused gets the electric chair.   They are tough on crime, short on compassion and frequent on racist generalizations which cloud their mind and sour their soul with such hatful rhetoric. These prejudices come busting out towards the end of the movie when jurors #3 and #10 are the most desperate as they are now left alone with the intense eyes of jurors who at the beginning of their deliberations, supported their discriminatory ideology by voting for the guilt of the accused. Once the support has been eroded, their actions, like the actions of juror#3, set them apart as they infamously emerge as the other leaders in the jury room. The fact that juror #3 allows his frustrations with his son to come into play with his judgment towards the guilt of the accused and that he his mannerisms are so over the top, helps him emerge as the other main leader in the jury room. His prejudice lies in the age of the accused being close to that of his own son with whom he has had a troubled relationship and a troubled past. Juror #3 may or may not hate his son but he is very discouraged and displeased with the way that things have gone in their relationship and vents his frustration towards the accused. The prejudice of juror #10 lies not in the age of the accused by rather in his race. The accused is a Latino who grew up in the poor tenements of New York where crime runs rampant and juror #10 feels that the accused is guilty by association since he came from such squalor and with a troubled past. However, juror #10 is not nearly as vocal in his suspicion of juror #5 who grew up in a similar atmosphere simply because the juror is white. It is more the race of the accused than where he grew up that seems to motivate juror #10 into the assumption that the boy is guilty. At first, it is the outspoken demeanor of juror #10 that helps to set him apart from the other jurors in a leadership role. But his leadership emerges in more infamous ways as he vocalizes his racist assumptions of the accused in one final and desperate outburst as he desperately tried to win back converts to his cause. He uses such words as â€Å"those people† and â€Å"you know how they are† and finally, the accused is â€Å"one of them.† The phrases are used at the beginning of the movie and assumed as fact in the mind of juror #10 mostly due to the fact that his only opposition is from juror #8 who is not being taken seriously and is no threat to him. However, when the group process shows that juror #10 is in a shrinking majority and will soon be a lone standout, along with juror #3, the same phrases are used desperately but to no avail. The main source for the drama in the jury room is the requirement that their decision must be unanimous. If for the simple fact that everyone must be in agreement in either sending the accused to his death or setting him free, there would have been no screenplay to begin with. The jurors might have argued the merits of the case but with there being no need for a unanimous decision, juror #8 would have known that unless he could win six more converts in what would have to be a short amount of time, the deliberations would soon be over. The ulterior motives of jurors #3 and #10 would never have seen the light of day. The lack of conviction displayed by jurors #1 #2 and #12 would never had been recognized and the heroic actions of juror #8 and to a lesser extent juror #9, would never had sparked such heated yet important and necessary debate within the jury room. Every man left the jury room a little different than when they first came. Jurors #2, #5, #11 and #12 may have been emboldened in their private lives and to let future injustices not slide as easily as they may have had in the past. Jurors #3, #10 and to a lesser extent #7, recognized their prejudices and may have exerted some effort to confront these problems. The phrase â€Å"group process† refers to the behavior of people in groups, such as task groups that are trying to solve a problem or make a decision. 12 Angry Men has numerous and obvious examples of group process. It is the fact that twelve men must come to a unanimous decision that such examples can be shown. If there were only one or two jurors and/or a unanimous decision did not have to be achieved, any aspect of group process would have been absent. The jurors can be grouped into three main groups: those who are strongly in favor of giving the accused the electric chair, those who are willing to go along with the majority and those who are strongly in favor of being oblivious from the glaring prejudices and racist assumptions and quickly latch onto the moralist; juror #8 and then #9. Jurors #2 #5 and #11 are beneficiaries of group process.   They cannot do alone what is made easier in a group once jurors #8 and #9 have voted for the innocence of the accused. Alone, they could never have done what #8 and #9 had done: stand up to vocal ridicule and to do it alone. But once the first step has been made towards an attempt to judge the facts and not the race, age or background of the accused, jurors #2, #5 and #11 are relieved to vote their consciousness instead of giving into the pressure levied against them by specifically jurors #3 #4 and #10. The negative aspects of group process would have been guilty for defective decision making if it hadn’t been for the fact that juror #8 has the courage to vote for the innocence of the accused. 12 Angry Men will continue to stand the test of time since it speaks eloquently on many different areas: that prejudices are an impediment to everyone in a democratic society and that standing up for a belief, despite knowing the dangers of such a stand, is honorable and should be recognized as courageous. But also, people do in groups what they wouldn’t do in private. Individuality within a group of strong opinions comes at a price and that price is most often ridicule and misunderstanding. If at the beginning of the movie, the foreman had taken a secret vote, juror #8 may not have been the lone dissenter. The jurors that did not put a great deal of value in the democratic process of trial by jury and didn’t feel that a daily salary of $3 was not worthy of their methodical analysis of the facts, were content to go with the majority, no matter what that decision said. But for the jurors who made it a point to shift group process away from a guilty verdict based on racist assumptions and in light of strong ridicule and little monetary compensation, this movie will continue to be studied and appreciated for years to come. 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men 5%) Task B To what extent could prescriptive models of strategy be used to explain the strategic success of Facebook? (1500 words, 12. 5 %) Total weighting for Assignment 1: 25% Individual Assignment: Marking Guidelines 100 marks = 25% weighting †¢ Critical discussion and application of relevant models and concepts on strategic capabilities to understand the competitive advantage of Facebook (25 marks) †¢ Critical examination of conventional strategic management models to explain the success Facebook (25 marks) Discussion of contemporary models/ studies such as complexity theory, chaos and positive returns economics that may give an insight into Facebook’s explosive growth (25marks) †¢ Academic protocol – quality of academic references, the presentation of these and the overall structuring and format of the business report (25 marks) (Total 100 marks=25%) ————————————†”——————————————————————————– Group Assignment Assignment Brief Task A Using relevant strategic management concepts, conduct an analysis of the film: â€Å"12 Angry Men† ( Dir. Sidney Lumet. Orion-Nova, 1957. Film) and discuss the implications of your findings for decision making in a business organisation. (Max: 1000 words or 5 slides) Task B The Board of Directors of a medium-sized company of your own choosing have recently attended a conference on contemporary developments in strategic thinking. They were particularly impressed by the Blue ocean concept. As consultants, critically discuss the ways in which the Board could shift its current strategy in oder to open up new market possibilities and to create sustainable value for its current and new stakeholders. 2000 words or 10 Slides) . Group presentation guidelines †¢ Students are required to fully participate in and contribute to the development of the Group Presentation. Non-participation and/or non-attendance will result in restriction of marks for this aspect of assessment †¢ The group size will be determined by the module leader and module teaching team and will normally be in the range o f 6-8 group members (normal maximum). In specific circumstances this may be varied. †¢ The formal Group Presentation will be delivered by a maximum of three members of the group. The other group members will be required to answer questions put them by assessors at the end of the presentation. †¢ The absolute maximum presentation period is 20 minutes. This will be timed and there will be NO extensions to this time period. Student Groups are strongly advised to rehearse their presentation to ensure that the time period is strictly adhered to. †¢ Presentations will be stopped by the lecturer/assessment team at the end of 20 minutes †¢ Presentations are followed by Questions which are required to be fielded by/responded to by all the members of the group. The absolute timed period for questions is 10 minutes. †¢ Both times are required to be strictly adhered to. †¢ There is a stipulated Maximum of 15 power point slides in the 20 minute presentation. †¢ Students are required to be aware and are formally advised of all maximum times which will be cut off times with no exceptions. †¢ Power Point printouts with the individual texts provided for the presentation by each student are required to be handed in to the assessment team/lecturer at the time of the presentation immediately before the commencement of the presentation and will be retained by the lecturer/assessment team. The contribution to the Group Presentation is deemed to be equivalent to 3000 words from each student. †¢ The Assessment Weighting for this aspect of the group assessment is 25% (all students in the particular group are awarded the same percentage) Group Presentation Evaluation Criteria 100 marks= 25% weighting Organisation †¢ Topic clea rly stated †¢ Structure and scope of presentation clearly stated †¢ Topic developed in order stated †¢ Speakers summed up main points in conclusion 10 marks Content Knowledge of subject (background of company and storyline of film and their relevance to module) †¢ Application and discussion of relevant conceptual models †¢ Clarity of business concept for Blue Ocean †¢ Implications of analysis for strategic decision-making and company selected †¢ Speakers in control of subject matter 30 marks Confidence †¢ Speakers look relaxed and confident †¢ Professionally dressed †¢ Maintain eye contact †¢ Engage with audience and display awareness of audience response 10 marks Speech †¢ Varied paced †¢ Use of conversational style avoiding jargon and long-winded â€Å"bookish† xplanation of relevant concepts †¢ Appropriate volume †¢ Clear pronunciation and articulation †¢ Accurate grammar 10 marks Visual Aids à ¢â‚¬ ¢ Clear and legible †¢ Introduced at right time †¢ User-friendly, easy to follow and not too much information †¢ Impact on audience †¢ Creativity and novelty 10 marks Timing †¢ Well-timed presentation †¢ Time divided appropriately between tasks 10 marks Discussion management and handling of questions †¢ Respond confidently to questions †¢ Deflect difficult or irrelevant questions 20 marks (Total 100 marks= 25%) Students are required to fully participate in and contribute to the development of the Group Presentation. Marks will be restricted for non-participation and/or non-attendance. Module Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:- Upon successful completion of the assessment, students will be able to: Assignment 1 (Individual): †¢ analyse the aims, concept and role of strategic management Assignment 2 (Group Assignment) †¢ critically analyse how the different perspectives of social science disciplines inform strategic management †¢ evaluate the debates surrounding contemporary strategic issues 12 Angry Men 5%) Task B To what extent could prescriptive models of strategy be used to explain the strategic success of Facebook? (1500 words, 12. 5 %) Total weighting for Assignment 1: 25% Individual Assignment: Marking Guidelines 100 marks = 25% weighting †¢ Critical discussion and application of relevant models and concepts on strategic capabilities to understand the competitive advantage of Facebook (25 marks) †¢ Critical examination of conventional strategic management models to explain the success Facebook (25 marks) Discussion of contemporary models/ studies such as complexity theory, chaos and positive returns economics that may give an insight into Facebook’s explosive growth (25marks) †¢ Academic protocol – quality of academic references, the presentation of these and the overall structuring and format of the business report (25 marks) (Total 100 marks=25%) ————————————†”——————————————————————————– Group Assignment Assignment Brief Task A Using relevant strategic management concepts, conduct an analysis of the film: â€Å"12 Angry Men† ( Dir. Sidney Lumet. Orion-Nova, 1957. Film) and discuss the implications of your findings for decision making in a business organisation. (Max: 1000 words or 5 slides) Task B The Board of Directors of a medium-sized company of your own choosing have recently attended a conference on contemporary developments in strategic thinking. They were particularly impressed by the Blue ocean concept. As consultants, critically discuss the ways in which the Board could shift its current strategy in oder to open up new market possibilities and to create sustainable value for its current and new stakeholders. 2000 words or 10 Slides) . Group presentation guidelines †¢ Students are required to fully participate in and contribute to the development of the Group Presentation. Non-participation and/or non-attendance will result in restriction of marks for this aspect of assessment †¢ The group size will be determined by the module leader and module teaching team and will normally be in the range o f 6-8 group members (normal maximum). In specific circumstances this may be varied. †¢ The formal Group Presentation will be delivered by a maximum of three members of the group. The other group members will be required to answer questions put them by assessors at the end of the presentation. †¢ The absolute maximum presentation period is 20 minutes. This will be timed and there will be NO extensions to this time period. Student Groups are strongly advised to rehearse their presentation to ensure that the time period is strictly adhered to. †¢ Presentations will be stopped by the lecturer/assessment team at the end of 20 minutes †¢ Presentations are followed by Questions which are required to be fielded by/responded to by all the members of the group. The absolute timed period for questions is 10 minutes. †¢ Both times are required to be strictly adhered to. †¢ There is a stipulated Maximum of 15 power point slides in the 20 minute presentation. †¢ Students are required to be aware and are formally advised of all maximum times which will be cut off times with no exceptions. †¢ Power Point printouts with the individual texts provided for the presentation by each student are required to be handed in to the assessment team/lecturer at the time of the presentation immediately before the commencement of the presentation and will be retained by the lecturer/assessment team. The contribution to the Group Presentation is deemed to be equivalent to 3000 words from each student. †¢ The Assessment Weighting for this aspect of the group assessment is 25% (all students in the particular group are awarded the same percentage) Group Presentation Evaluation Criteria 100 marks= 25% weighting Organisation †¢ Topic clea rly stated †¢ Structure and scope of presentation clearly stated †¢ Topic developed in order stated †¢ Speakers summed up main points in conclusion 10 marks Content Knowledge of subject (background of company and storyline of film and their relevance to module) †¢ Application and discussion of relevant conceptual models †¢ Clarity of business concept for Blue Ocean †¢ Implications of analysis for strategic decision-making and company selected †¢ Speakers in control of subject matter 30 marks Confidence †¢ Speakers look relaxed and confident †¢ Professionally dressed †¢ Maintain eye contact †¢ Engage with audience and display awareness of audience response 10 marks Speech †¢ Varied paced †¢ Use of conversational style avoiding jargon and long-winded â€Å"bookish† xplanation of relevant concepts †¢ Appropriate volume †¢ Clear pronunciation and articulation †¢ Accurate grammar 10 marks Visual Aids à ¢â‚¬ ¢ Clear and legible †¢ Introduced at right time †¢ User-friendly, easy to follow and not too much information †¢ Impact on audience †¢ Creativity and novelty 10 marks Timing †¢ Well-timed presentation †¢ Time divided appropriately between tasks 10 marks Discussion management and handling of questions †¢ Respond confidently to questions †¢ Deflect difficult or irrelevant questions 20 marks (Total 100 marks= 25%) Students are required to fully participate in and contribute to the development of the Group Presentation. Marks will be restricted for non-participation and/or non-attendance. Module Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:- Upon successful completion of the assessment, students will be able to: Assignment 1 (Individual): †¢ analyse the aims, concept and role of strategic management Assignment 2 (Group Assignment) †¢ critically analyse how the different perspectives of social science disciplines inform strategic management †¢ evaluate the debates surrounding contemporary strategic issues

Friday, September 27, 2019

Hollywood and The Red Scare Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 1

Hollywood and The Red Scare - Essay Example In the end, it was the enemy from within acting as the nation’s protector that caused hardships for many Americans and not communism. The most evident example of this exploitation for personal gains comes from Hollywood due to its high profile status. In 1950, what had been a largely ineffectual and obscure U.S. Senator, who was riddled with bribery scandals, gave a speech in West Virginia that would make him a powerful and famous legislator. Senator Joseph McCarthy told those gathered at the Republican Women’s Club â€Å"The State Department is infested with Communists.† (Roberts, 2010). He further claimed to possess 205 names of known, avowed communists who were working for the U.S. State Department. This was untrue but the speech served its purpose, by shifting the accusing public spotlight from him to others. Soon afterward the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) began hearings in an effort to root-out communist sympathizers and subversives. HUAC began by calling to testify movie stars and moguls who the government knew were staunchly anti-communist such as Louis B Mayer, Jack earner, Robert Taylor, Gary Cooper and Walt Disney, a movie making icon that was certain â€Å"Commies† were attempting to ruin his business and his good name. Disney was eager to offer names of suspected communist. He even went as far as to make wild, unsubstantiated assumptions of a person being communist due to this individual having â€Å"no religion and had spent considerable time at the Moscow Art Theatre studying art direction, or something.† (Rad, 2009) It was later discovered Disney had been an FBI informant from the time WWII ended until his death in the mid 1960’s. An opposition group called the Committee for the First Amendment protested the congressional investigations. Among the groups members were high profile Hollywood celebrities such as Lucille Ball, Lauren Bacall, Gene Kelly and Humphrey Bogart. The

Thursday, September 26, 2019

Study for econ Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Study for econ - Essay Example The economic systems are classified on the basis of the ownership of the factor of production, the legal framework, level of competition, distribution of income, and the organization of decision making. The economic systems are evaluated on the basis of the abovementioned factors or criteria and are normally categorized into three main categories which are as follow: Capitalism is basically derived from the right to life, right to liberty, and right to property. This means that capitalism supports the private ownership of the property in order to control the means of production. Other important characteristics include exchange, capital, efficiency, use of markets, etc. In capitalism the market is controlled by the market forces and there is decentralized decision making and economic system. At the same time there are no legal or political institutions or framework to control the market. Five basic characteristics of capitalism economic system are as follow: Marx implemented the theory of history on the sociological and economic impacts of the capitalism economic system. He was of the idea that the capitalism can only occur in short run due to its negative impacts in long run and thus viewed the capitalism economic system at historical stage. According to him the capitalism economics system can only be progressive in short run and eventually will be useless and will be overtaken by socialism. Marx criticized the approach of capitalism as a social economic relation only between the people as opposite to the relation between the people and resources or things. The concept of the private ownership of capital tends to benefit the owners and ignore the labors and workers. The owners earn profits and income on the expense of the labors and workers. He claimed that the capitalism will results in accumulation of more and more capital by the owner and thus diminishing the labors or working class and thus will create the need of social reforms. H ence, the

The Ku Klux Klan Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

The Ku Klux Klan - Essay Example born terrorist organization, it is required for us to investigate the beliefs, rituals as well as the strategies of terror of the Ku Klux Klan. The faiths and beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan are fascinating and help delineate the motives and targets for their rituals and strategies of terror. However, there is a correct understanding of the history of the Ku Klux Klan and the United States that helps in understanding the origins of their faiths. By following the Revolutionary War, the United States was led by the main-stream of white Protestants who shared the old Puritan belief in their elite status (Horn, 2006). This group believed that the liability of self-government and the full liberties as well as civil rights profited from independence were in their fit in. many of the white Southerners possessed a long family history of owning slaves and felt supreme to the African Americans. The unshackled blacks living in the South were resented and observed to be inferior by most of the white Southerners. ... ality and democracy, the emergence of Ku Klux Klan followed the Revolutionary War against religious, ethnic, and cultural groups who were targeted as non-Americans (Kelly, 1998). The Ku Klux Klan was founded in the year 1866 by the retired Confederate soldiers who looked for a social group and the activity in order to fulfill their time (Horn, 2006). Firstly, the Klan targeted African Americans as a resource to imitate their humorous pranks on. Nonetheless, the Klan was soon organized in to a military ladder and profited of thousands of members who were politically and emotionally driven against the blacks and equality politics. in following the Reconstruction, Klan members delineated the purpose of their organization as a peace-maintaining organization which was targeted at self-defense. Most of the members feared the rise of independent blacks, thinking that they were becoming violent and threatened the security of the white Southerners. The second era emerged with Klan becoming as a secret organization. However, as noticed by Martin, in the third epoch the Klan grew as a glorified public organization with approximately four million members (Martin, 2006). The widespread recognition of the Ku Klux Klan came from the shared faiths in nativism and wistful ideas of a previous better America. Moreover, with the help of Ridgeway and Stalcup's view, the Klan emerged as an organization which was focused against the rapidly transforming world and the perceived threat to its being and value system (Ridgeway, 1995; Stalcup et. al,

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Citizenship and Social Exclusion in England and Turkey's schools Essay

Citizenship and Social Exclusion in England and Turkey's schools - Essay Example The central thesis of the paper would claim that both Bernard Crick and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's views are formed into one social structure and represents citizenship in education as a uniform standard which applies to all groups and people which live in their country. This is in a way comparison of welfare model to republic model of citizenship. To elaborate the entire subject matter it is important to understand the terminology of citizenship under the perspective of Osler and Starkey's point of view. Under the parameters of Osler and Starkey citizenship indicates several variables where one of the most important aspects is the determination trust and faith democracy rather than autocracy. The second most important aspect in accordance to Osler and Starkey is the determination of cooperation rather than the essence of conflict within the society. Thirdly it should be seen whether it is sustainable within the parameters of diversity and equality. The essence of citizenship also indicates that a good citizen must be bale to recognise the individual responsibilities and rights. The individual citizen must also recognise the precedence of authority and power. Furthermore the citizen must be able to understand and honour the aspects of order and freedom along with community preference and individual position in the society. Lastly, Osler and Starkey indicated that the indication of citizen that is the most important of all is the understanding, application and exercise of human rights, law, rules, justice and fairness. These are the basic parameters of a citizen from the point of view of Osler and Starkey. (Osler, 2000) It is important to define the concept of social exclusion in the context of England from the parameters of the citizenship principals. There are substantial differences among theorists of education regarding this issue along with the practitioners that whether the entire citizenship tool is applicable or not while engaging the ethnic minority segment of the society and combat racism. Osler and Starkey mention that this fundamental essence is instrumental in providing a good amount of opportunity that would be ultimately be a very important aspect of eradicating racial inequality in education. At the same note Osler and Starkey believes that Crick report has hardly any element that would be helpful for providing guidance to the teachers in spreading anti racism. Furthermore, Osler and Starkey also believe that the Crick report would not prove to be any help in the perspective of minority engagement in terms of students. In fact there is no mention of racism in the creak report. But the fact is that this is one element in the society that could be termed as one of the most detrimental aspects of the society and is in fact an evil curse on democracy. Osler and Starkey even mentions that the Crick report is basically a recommendation that contains a lot of colonial flavour. (Osler, 2000) In the present situation the government aiming to incorporate programs that socially include everyone devoid of colour, cast, race and creed. One of the most compelling developments of our age is the recognition of multicultural of multiracial society and how they

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

The Quick Wins Paradox Article Review Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The Quick Wins Paradox Article Review - Essay Example ers reassurance to the leaders’ supervisor who believes to have made the right choice in promoting them, while on the side of the team members; it reveals to them whether to have confidence in their new selected supervisor or other team members (Buren &Â  Safferstone, 2009). In most cases, the new leaders try to pursue early outcomes, never realizing that they may easily fall into some of the traps that may sabotage their accomplishment (Buren &Â  Safferstone, 2009). This is a failure in terms of success to the organization. It also affects the other employees directly. The father who is part of his team criticized his behavior, but he has reacted negatively. This behavior comes from the employees having a mandate in an industry and they fail in one way or another (Buren &Â  Safferstone, 2009). They often feel any criticism to their side to be an act of attack or aggression. These actions may make some of the team members leave the companies that they are employed. Since the young man is about to attain a degree in Organizational leadership he believes that he has better ideas than his father. This is the reason he undercuts him and he ends up managing many of the projects by himself (Buren &Â  Safferstone, 2009). The certainty and eager aspiration of the new team members frighten the rest of the associates, hindering them from performing to the expectations or getting to contribute to the projects of the organization. The father who is a technician is relying on his son to come up with better ideas that will facilitate his business to grow and also achieve his vision, but the son is only focusing on few details and leaving the critical issues out (Buren &Â  Safferstone, 2009). Some of the new leaders and team members often jump into conclusion in trying to implement some solutions, instead of involving other team members in the decisions. This will significantly affect the outcome because there may not be a clear understanding (Buren &Â  Safferstone, 2009).

Monday, September 23, 2019

Comparison between India and Chinese political systems Essay

Comparison between India and Chinese political systems - Essay Example This does not mean that the communist and non-communist fronts do not means to discuss matters of national importance. In 1946, there was a call from the non-communist parties to hold a joint conference known as the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). China’s political system is defined by such fundamental aspects as the laws and the Chinese constitution, the political structure, rules, regulations and practices which are limited by the state power, relationship between the state and societies and the government. It is during the CPPCC that both communists and non-communists came together with the democratic personages and adopted a provisional constitution for the Chinese. Concurrently, the Central Peoples Government was founded and elected by the political elites in China leading to the foundation of the People Republic of China (Pomfret, 2007, p 91). The formation of the Chinese republic marked the beginning of democracy since the non- communi sts became active participants in decision making and consultants on issues facing the state and its political systems. Likewise democracy is observed by electing members from non-communist parties as deputies to the CPC and in committees of the CPPCC. The Chinese constitution provides for standing committees, national congresses and government organs for instance cultural, economic, educational, technological, scientific and economic departments which are mostly headed by non-communist party leaders. Such a step is pertinent since the non-communists are meant to be whistle blowers and watch digs to monitor government activities and expenditure. For a long time, the two fronts have had a peaceful co-existence while engaging in mutual... Comparison between India and Chinese political systems India as a country is faced by several political challenges which emanate from different communities some of which demand for social rights, economic empowerment, autonomy of cultures, autonomy of states and others make demands to the government to grant them independence to break from the Indian Union. Despite having these governance problems the country still survives as a democratic single state although there a number of political problems that remains unsolved by the Indian government. Similar to India, China is a communist state with many political parties with the lead part being the Communist Party of China (CPC). Despite having many political parties in both countries, India has more parties as compared to China. Many political parties translate into a high expenditure of time and resources and this are among the factors that have pulled behind the Indian economy since their political structure, functions and environment does not favor creation of multimillion empires invest ments from international firms. These differences have resulted in creation of a divide among the many Indians who are now lobbying for division of India into states or according to political fronts. According to Professor John Quiggin in his article entitled â€Å"Chinas Imminent Collapse†, China is set for tough economic and political times which will likely be caused by runaway inflation. It is a fact that communist economies are yet to face a hard time in the wake of economic crisis that are facing the world starting with European Countries such as Greece.

Saturday, September 21, 2019

Bletchley Park GCSE Coursework Essay Example for Free

Bletchley Park GCSE Coursework Essay Bletchley Park was unique in many different was. Located just outside Bletchley, in southern England in some ways it could have been said to be detached from the rest of Britain during World War 2, lost in a secret world. The organization at Bletchley Park was unique. The method of operations, the dedication, the secrets hidden away behind the walls and even the people working there. All were completely different to what had ever been seen before in terms of code cracking. Secrecy was a big part of life in Bletchley, and even in the beginning when the initial government representatives went to check it out for possible use during wartime, they acted as privately as possible and gave reason for their stay as a hunting trip. The private aspect of station X continued throughout the war with guards patrolling the perimeters of Bletchley day and night. The secrecy kept up after the war as well, with those who had worked at Bletchley Park not being officially allowed to talk about it publicly until 1976. This was likely to be due to Churchills mistake after World War 1; of letting the Germans know that the British had cracked their code. Station X was another method of keeping the enigma secret. It was code-name used, meaning the key station where all the messages were sent. There where several other station Ys, all of which recorded any messages the intercepted and passed them straight on to the larger workstation at Bletchley (station X). This was to keep Bletchley Park looking relatively normal and aerial-free, thus aiding with the bid for secrecy. The people working at station X came from a variety of different backgrounds and were often chosen explicitly for their social records and information, rather than any skills with code breaking they had. Whilst this did only apply to the minority at Bletchley, (many working there during the war had come straight out of universities such as Oxford or Cambridge with a Maths degree) it is still a key aspect of the organization. Some were recruited on their ability to see outside of the box meaning that they were hired to see gaps (or flaws) in what others could not. This resulted in many people with more eccentric personalities residing in Bletchley during the war. Such people included the marvelous Alan Turing, who came up with the idea for the Bombe, one of the first computers in the world. He was certainly one of the abnormal people at Bletchley Park, but also an example of an extremely intelligent one. The actual organization at Bletchley was divided into certain huts. It was within these huts that the duties revolving around code cracking were divided up. For example, hut 8 may have been cracking the naval codes of the enigma, whilst hut 4 was deciding if they were to be of any use. This not only increased efficiency, but as a side effect, seemed to raise morale as well. Rather than working as a larger body were small triumphs went completely unnoticed, through these huts a sense of recognition of others efforts was able to be established. Many of the people with Bletchley were incredibly dedicated and in some cases worked solidly for 24 hours just to make sure that one particular aspect of the code was broken. This of course accelerated to process in which the enigma was eventually broken. Originally, those working at Bletchley Park were not respected or given the appropriate amount of attention by the SIS. (The secret intelligence service) However, this changed after Bletchley accurately predicted the location of a German warship that was just about the attack the British. The SIS ignored the warning, and two British ships were sunk and 1,500 men died. This was a wake up call for the SIS, who then proceeded to give any messages received from Bletchley top priority. 2. Why was Bletchley Park able to break the German enigma? Those working at Bletchley Park were able to break the enigma for several different reasons. Most importantly, it was due to their great skills at code cracking, their powerful intellect and the amazing perseverance that many had to try and achieve the goal. Other reasons must be taken into account though. Such as the clumsy mistakes by the German operators and the help that was given to the British by other countries such as the extraordinary work done by Poland before the war. The British received a great deal of intelligence from other countries during the war. The poles had secretly been working on the enigma before and during the start of the war. Three mathematicians had been trying to decode messages and solve the random jumble of letters. As Germany invaded, polish officials met up with the British and gave them all they knew about the enigma. This not only opened the gates for the British as to what the Nazis were using to scramble to letters, but also gave them a solid head start in order to go about decoding them. Later on, a German who was willing to sell information about the enigma contacted the French. French intelligence later passed this information on to the rest of the allies, including the British. Both of these two events greatly helped Bletchley Park crack the code of the enigma initially, and throughout the rest of the war. Another factor that continued to help the people working at station X were the mistakes of the German operators. It is likely that if the Germans had used the enigma exactly as directed, it would have been a lot harder to crack, thus taking up much more time. Common mistakes were not replacing or changing the order in which the cog wheels were arranged, not arranging the two plugs in the correct formation and other more minor errors that were normally results from laziness. Another fault that was used to its maximum effect was that of the double helix. In many cases, the enigma was not anywhere near as random as the Germans had first hoped, and in a few cases the British were able to see clear patterns were letters were exactly the same within the code. Whilst this was not necessarily the Germans fault, it was still as mistake that they did not know about and failed to consider. These mistakes were exploited and picked apart by the British, giving them a further chance in forming patterns out the mess. Bletchley used certain methods to ease the task of finding the right combination out of 150,000,000,000,000,000 possibilities. Techniques such as laying out perforated sheets to see if any letters matched were popular and helped the efficiency of code cracking as a whole. Also, machines that were invented during the war (including one of the first computers in the world) were a great asset to those at Bletchley as well. The machines invented during the time in Bletchley were all upgraded versions of the same basic idea. The human operator would feed in a code that had usually been worked on previously by other people or was a calculated (likely to be true) estimate (nicknamed a crib by those a Bletchley). The operator would enter the code into the machine and then it would cycle through all the possible combinations, stopping when it reached the correct one. The final version, invented by Turing, could decipher the code, possible wheel locations and possible plug locations thousands of times faster than a human. This greatly helped the British with the speed of cracking codes and sending them off to those who needed them. However it did not decrease the difficulty of knowing what formulas to use within the machine in the first place, or even decoding the initial and forming calculated guesses to feed into the machine to start off with. Those working at Bletchley had to solve several things in order to gather the information needed to have a chance at cracking the code. These included: * The Cog order and wiring * The text settings * The Cross plugging * And language (including German military slang terms) This required great patience and dedication all skills that those working at Bletchley either had already, or managed to acquire. Cracking a code can be an incredibly frustrating experience said one worker, but in most cases the results are uplifting, rewarding [and] very satisfying. Through intertwining many different people into a close knit community, along with their skills, personalities and unique ideas, Bletchley Park managed to effectively the ultimate code-cracking machine. Finally, breakthroughs were also a key factor when it came to breaking the code. Strokes of luck such as recovering German navy code books off small weather vessels that were easily captured, or getting other such Nazi secrets of sinking U-boats or crashed vehicles greatly helped advance the enigma effort. Overall, there was no key reason why the British were able to crack the code of the enigma. No huge mistake was made by the Germans that completely gave the secrets away, no massive breakthrough was made by the British to unlock all the enigma codes in one go, the end result came from many different factors that when put together, gave Bletchley Park the key to the enigma code.