Jacob Marley Essay Example for Free

Jacob Marley Essay This year the Citizens Theatre, which is a professional theatre, performed the well known pantomime Scrooge. I have been to the Citizens Theatre many times previous to seeing Scrooge. The Citizens Theatre is internationally recognized theatre with a proscenium arch stage and shows a variety of different plays, some very traditional and some very contemporary. As a child I was always amazed by the set and costumes used in the Citzs pantomimes, it seamed that no corners were cut. So with this in mind I expected, not so much of a panto, but more of a theatrical performance with great visuals and I would say I was correct to say this. I am fairly familiar with the pantomime Scrooge adapted from the Charles Dickens book A Christmas Carol as I have seen it in other theatres prior to this year at the Citz. The Citzs, I thought was maybe not as traditional as the other versions but it was equally, if not more so, entertaining. I went to the pantomime twice whilst it was on, first with my peers and then with young children. IT was very interesting to see how they both reacted. The Story of Scrooge is about a man called Ebenezer Scrooge, a wealthy business man full of greed counting every penny entering and parting his pocket. On Christmas Eve he is visited by the ghost of his deceased business partner Jacob Marley, who has come to warn Scrooge of what awaits him if he carries on with his greediness. That evening Scrooge is to be visited by the three ghosts of Christmas past, present and future. Firstly the ghost of Christmas past comes to show him of the happy times before his self-inflicted loneliness caused by his greed, as a child and as a young man. Then the ghost Christmas present shows Scrooge the Cratchit family. The Cratchit family is very poor and consists of Bob Cratchit, Scrooges employee, his wife and their four children including their son Tiny Tim who is extremely ill. Scrooge is forced to realize that all the people around his fine it difficult to speak well of him. The ghost of Christmas future tells scrooge nothing but shows him of his death burdening all the people around him with the greed he left behind as they celebrate his death. Seeing this awful future that he himself could be creating, Scrooge decides to change for the better, rewarding workers with a pay rise and giving money to charity he had previously changed and donating a rich Christmas feast to the Cratchit family. The quality of the set was amazing as it was very grand and the size of the stage meant that the set could be quite big without being pretentious. All around the stage is painted Scrooges favorite phrase Bah Humbug in italic writing. At first there was just an office set up with a window through which you could see all the Characters entering the scene, I thought that this made the action more realistic and was quite interesting. The window was also used for carol singers and the audience could just faintly hear then which made it feel like you were actually in the office. When Scrooge goes home the office wall is raised to reveal a whole new set which is even more spectacular. A set of stone stairs lead up to Scrooges bedroom, luxuriously decorated compared to his office that is on a 15 foot tall platform. The most exciting part of the set was when Christmas present arrives with his set, a whole new room painted red into which he is camouflaged, just rolling on moving Scrooges room away. This room is decorated with lots of Christmas decorations. The one prop used by Scrooge a lot was a light bulb which showed how grudging he was because he would remove it with such care whenever leaving the room. Obviously the main character in the play was Ebenezer scrooge. He was an old, selfish, grumpy, bitter old man. We could tell this by his facial expressions that were always very twisted. Although dressed in a suite his long scraggly hair and unshaven face showed that he wasnt all that concerned with his appearance. This rugged look indicated his age as well as his movement which was hunched over and slow. At the end however we see a very different scrooge that stands up tall with his head in the air to show his confidence has been gained and he is proud of his changes. I think this couldve been shown by making a greater contrast as I didnt think the change in Scrooge was very dramatic. At the end of the play we are made aware that Scrooge does care about the people around him. He may have realized in a selfish manner, but he changed before it was too late which is what matters, leaving us with a fairy tale ending. I think one of the most dramatic characters in the play has to have been Jacob Marley, Scrooges deceased business partner. He appears from the floor when Scrooges light suddenly cuts out. His costume is amazing with a death gown shredded with blood smeared across it to signify that he is dead and has been tortured for his sinful life. Although impressive, Jacob Marleys entrance was quite alarming and younger children found it quite scary, especially along with the chains on his wrists and ankles acting as the chains binding him to hell. Compared the quietness of the room before, this huge explosion of noise is very effective. He comes to warn scrooge and is desperate to get the message to him, we can tell this by the way in which he attempts to get closer to him but the chains stop him, there is also wind blowing against him stopping him making contact with Scrooge.

HRM Strategies Needed by Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies to Achieve High Performance Work :: Janssen Pharmaceuticals Case Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY High Performance Work (HPW) is absolutely essential for the associations to manage the to a great degree aggressive markets. Absence of organisational effectiveness or techniques would absolutely push the association in the negative course. In this paper Leadership and Human Resource Management (HRM) ideas are contemplated for expanding the superior working of the Janssen Pharmaceuticals. The collaboration and HRM procedures utilized by the Janssen are assessed. The assessment is carried out on the premise of proper hypothetical models. The ranges in which the association is solid and powerless are unmistakably distinguished and portrayed as a feature of the examination. Janssen which is fundamentally a Health care supplier has powerful HRM procedures. In the meantime there is so much the association can enhance in the fields like wellbeing, reasonable arrangement. Proposals for expanding the proficiency of the association are unmistakably depicted. Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4 Analysis...................................................................................................................... 4 About Janssen............................................................................................................ 4 Leadership†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. ............................................................................................. 5 Human Resource Management (HRM) .......................................................................6 Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 10 .Recommendations..................................................................................................... 11 References................................................................................................................. 12 INTRODUCTION For Janssen pharmaceuticals, leadership and human resource management are two essential perspectives that need to be analyse. The primary motivation behind taking these two angles it is straightforwardly connected to the High performance work (HPW) of the organization. Separated from all other criteria, leadership is a special quality that straightforwardly connected to the accomplishment of the organization, in light of the fact that it incorporates the social relations between higher powers and their minimum employees. The intermediate managers are paramount on the grounds that his predisposition part of leaders and supporters (Clegg, et.al 2011). The relationship of representatives with the top level administration is not entrenched for Janssen, may be a direct result of the absent of immediate contact with one another. There are different exercises included in the Human resource management. They are enrolling the workers, setting up the choice and remuneration techniques. It additionally incorporates execution administration frameworks, offering the data and including the workers in an extensive manner. All these exercises are done in a thorough way for procuring, creating and retaining the talented workforce. All these practices are by and large considered as high responsibility or high inclusion frameworks. In less difficult terms they are alluded as high performance works (HPWS). This idea is identified with strategic human resource management (SHRM). SHRM positively includes the managerial movements identified with communication and participation, preparing and advancement, recruitment and staffing and execution administration and compensation (Anthony et.

12 angry men paper Essay

The movie â€Å"12 Angry Men† is about a murder trial set in the mid 1900’s when the American legal system had very different rules from what it has now. The trial is about a 16 year old boy who supposedly murdered his father late one night in New York City. He was from a slum, with a history of problems with the law, including knife fights. The jury is made up of twelve white men who are supposed to deliberate about the boy’s fate when he is Latino. In the beginning of the movie it’s very clear that eleven of the twelve jurors have already decided that he was guilty, the only one who said not guilty is juror number eight. Juror number eight believes that you can’t send someone to die without even talking about the case first. As the movie goes on they discuss the different parts of the case and one by one the jurors begin to change their vote to not guilty. The first thing they discuss is the knife that was used to kill the father, then they discuss the time it took the only man on the floor below to get to the door after he heard the body hit the floor. After that they went on to deliberate more about previous things talked about, until finally they talked about the women who actually viewed the killing through a passing L train. One of the jurors remembers that she had indents on the sides of her nose indicating that she wore glasses, so they come to the conclusion that she couldn’t of seen anything since she wasn’t wearing her glasses while lying in bed. Once they finally call for a last vote they come to the verdict of acquitting the boy. All twelve jurors finally agree on the decision of not guilty. Throughout the entire movie there are many different dynamics at work among the 12 jurors. One of the main dynamics is that the boy is Hispanic during a time when racism was a natural part of society. You can clearly see that racism, and stereotyping played a huge part when even before they started deliberating eleven out of the twelve jurors voted guilty. There wasn’t a doubt in their minds that he didn’t do it, they based that solely off of the fact that the defendant was Hispanic. Having a all white jury for a trial with a Hispanic person as the defendant in the 1950’s, without a doubt racism will play a major role in deciding weather or not he is guilty. Another dynamic at play during this movie is that they are all in a group together giving them group mentality where they will be hesitant to speak out, or change their vote because they are self conscious of what other people will think about them. Throughout the movie there where many different things that influenced individual jurors and the jurors as a whole. In the movie 12 Angry Men there was an abundance of things that influenced individual jurors. One of the main things that influenced many of the jurors is racism because the defendant was Hispanic. One juror said â€Å"He’s an ignorant kid from a slum who doesn’t speak good English†. That’s flat out racism, there’s no way around the fact that racism played a huge role in their decision making process. In the 1950’s racism was part of everyday life, it was socially accepted during that time. Another thing that influenced one of them was that he had baseball tickets to a game later that night so he was going to side with what ever got him out of their sooner than later. He was voting guilty all the way till it became a split between the jurors on weather he was guilty or not. That shows that it affected his decision making process, because he was going to side with what ever side got him out faster. Another thing that influenced individual jurors is their fear to speak their minds, or side with the side they really think is the right one. In the beginning you could tell that some of the people were hesitant because they were afraid of what other people would think of them, that’s why they had to do a silent ballot in order to keep deliberating. There were other factors that affected the group as a whole in their decision making process. Different things affect the group than the individual jurors. The main thing that affected their decision making process is the extreme heat, the heat would make them want to get out of there as fast as possible, making them side with whatever side will get them out faster. I know I can’t work right when I’m extremely hot, I get frustrated really fast and have no patients, I know I would want to get out as fast as possible. You can tell that it affects people because they snap at each other at the drop of a hat, and they were sweating the whole time till they turned on the light. Another thing that affected the group as whole was groupthink, which is the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility. They will make decisions as a group so no one person can be blamed for whatever happens, people don’t like too much responsibility. Lastly another thing that helped sway their decision making process as a group is the fact that one person was trying to pressure other people into speaking, and pressuring them into siding with him. The movie 12 Angry Men was about a trial during the 1950’s in which a Hispanic boy supposedly killed his father, and twelve white men deliberate to determine his fate. They start out 11 to 1, and one by one they change sides till they eventually acquit him of all the charges. Things like racism, baseball tickets, and fear of what other people think are a few things that affected their individual decision-making. Things like groupthink, the heat, and the fact that you would run out of patients at a certain point, and you would start to snap at each other at the drop of the hat. In my opinion I think this movie was really good and a good look into the American legal system, because it shows the changes that have been made from them to now. 12 Angry Men Paper Essay â€Å"If there’s a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, a reasonable doubt, then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty†¦however you decide, your verdict must be unanimous.† The movie, The Twelve Angry Men, was a fascinating movie. Surprisingly, it was very interesting and engaging even though it was in black and white and made in 1950. This movie was a perfect demonstration of how individuals who meet in a goal orientated group fulfill roles, create norms, have status, acquire power, and become leaders, and how a group decides on a unanimous outcome. Each of the twelve jury members fulfilled a role at some point within the movie. They fulfilled task roles, maintenance roles, and self-centered roles. They had to learn to work together despite the roles they played to come to a unanimous decision. The Forman (Juror #1) fulfilled one group maintenance role (tension reliever) and two group task roles (procedural technician and initiator). As a tension reliever, the Forman told Cobb to calm down when Cobb started on his rant. He often tried to relieve tension in situations with conflict. As a procedural technician, Forman emphasized teamwork by asking the group to vote a couple of times in a couple different ways, vocal ballots and silent ballots. This helped the group stay on track. He also ran errands for the group, like retrieving the knife and the apartment blueprint. As an initiator, the Forman initiated the discussions after the jurors would break in the beginning of the movie. Whimpy (juror #2) fulfilled a group maintenance role as a supporter. Once Whimpy changed his vote to not guilty, he supported Fonda’s ideas. When Fonda was conversing with Cobb about the glasses, Whimpy supported Fonda’s point of view and told Cobb, â€Å"You can’t send someone off to die on evidence like that!† Lee J. Cobb (juror #3) played three individual roles (blocker, dominator, and confessor) and one group task role (opinion giver). Cobb played the role of the blocker most often. From the beginning to the end of the movie, he disagreed and ignored any of the jurors’ statements that are different from his opinion. At one point, Cobb shut down Whimpy who wanted to speak up. As a dominator, Cobb belligerently yelled at anyone who voted non guilty. He often started on a rant of his opinions and refused to let any of the other jurors s peak. Cobb played the role as a confessor towards the beginning of the movie when he shared the picture of his son. As an opinion Giver, Cobb said over and over that he was positive the boy was guilty and deserved the death penalty. He  repeatedly stated through out the movie, â€Å"he (the boy) has to pay for what he did.† E. G. Marshall (juror #4) played a group task role. As an opinion giver, Marshall was loyal to his vote. His opinion towards the end of the movie was still not guilty because of the eyewitness testimony from the women across the street. He was firm in this belief until the eyeglasses fact was brought up. Jack Klugman (juror #5) fulfilled a group task role. As an elaborator, he often compared and contrasted the case to his own life on the street. Specifically, he brought valuable information to the case when talking about the proper way to use a switch knife and how this information compared to the father’s stab wound. The painter (juror #6) was an information seeker, a group task role. It seemed as if the painter was unsure of where he stood for the majority of the movie. At one point he said to Fonda, â€Å"Supposin’ you talk us all out of this and, uh, the kid really did knife his father.† He was seeking information that would make him sure of his decision. Jack Warden (juror #7) played a group-building and maintenance role (follower) and an individual role (Joker). He wanted the jurors to reach a conclusion as soon as possible. He had tickets to see a baseball game, and did not want to miss it. He followed and switched his vote to whatever the popular vote was, so that he could leave as soon as possible to get to the baseball game. As a joker, he said nothing that contributed to making a decision. He mostly joked or complained that the process was taking too long. Henry Fonda (juror #8) fulfilled many group task roles in this film including informational seeker, informational giver, and initiator. As an informational seeker, Fonda asked for important facts that could help convince the jurors that it was possible the boy was not guilty. For example, when the elderly man pointed out that the witness had dents on the sides of her nose, Fonda asked for an explanation and clarification on what the elderly man meant by pointing this out. As an informational giver, Fonda demonstrated this role when he reenacted how long it would take the crippled old man to get across his bedroom, down the hall to unlock the door, and to see the boy run down the stairs. As the initiator, Fonda proposed new ideas and suggestions that there was a possibility that the boy was not guilty. He was the first person to suggest that the boy was not guilty. He initiated most of the conversations that lead to their verdict of not guilty. The elderly man (juror #9) fulfilled a group task role and a group-building and  maintenance role. As an information giver, the elderly man was the one to notice that the witness had notches on the side of her nose where typically eyeglasses usually sit. He was the one to point this out to the group. As an encourager, the elderly man was the first to understand and accept the not guilty vote that Fonda made. He agreed with Fonda’s ideas and suggestions that there is reasonable doubt that the boy may not be guilty. Archie (juror #10) played an individual role of special-interest pleader. At the end of the film, Archie had a melt down. He yelled and offended many of the jurors with his unnecessary crude insults and racist remarks. He was trying to sway the group based on his own personal biased opinions instead of the facts of the case. The watchmaker (juror #11) fulfilled one group task role as a recorder. At one point in the movie, the watch maker stood up and told the group that he had been listening and taking notes of what the other group members have been saying. Slick (juror #12) played a group building and maintenance role as a follower. He did not speak up much about the case. When he did speak, it was about his ad agency. He thought very highly of himself and his job. He changed his vote back and forth several times. Additionally to roles, there were many social norms that developed through out this movie. All of them were violated by at least one person at some point. Sometimes, the jurors who violated the norms were punished and other times they were not. The first social norm that was created was to vote guilty. Fonda was the first to violate this norm by voting not guilty. Eventually the rest of the group slowly changes their vote, and the group created a new norm of voting not guilty instead of guilty. Another social norm that was created by the legal system was that the jurors’ decision had to be unanimous. Fonda violated this norm by voting against the group. As punishment for violating the norm, the group verbally attacked him before they gave him a chance to explain his reasoning. Because of this, a norm developed that it was okay for the jurors to harass and belittle Fonda for his not guilty vote. The elderly man violated this norm. He was subjected to harassment and belittlement as well as his punishment. After time went on, more people started to agree with Fondaâ₠¬â„¢s ideas, and the group did not follow this norm any more. An additional social norm was to make a decision based on facts, not prejudice or stereotypes. Those who obeyed the norm, like Fonda and Marshall, were looked to as leaders. The juror that made  arguments based on stereotypes, Archie, was eventually ignored. From this, a norm that no racial prejudices would be tolerated was created. Archie violated this norm when he said that he knew people of these kinds very well. As punishment, one by one group members left the table and turned their backs on him. In every group, there are members of high status and of low status. In this movie, there was almost an equal balance of high status jurors and low status jurors. The status of the jurors developed when they assumed a role within the group. The high status members included, the Foreman, Cobb, Marshall, Fonda, the Elderly Man, and Archie. The Foreman assumed a high status role because he organized where everyone would sit, passed out the ballots, and was able to rein the jurors back in to vote when needed. Cobb would be considered high status because he dominated a lot of the conversations. He communicated more than other group members, and other jurors listened to him in the beginning of the movie. Marshall is a stockbroker and was viewed as high status because of his education. Fonda was definitely a high status member. Over the course of the movie, he convinced the other eleven jurors to change the ir vote by pointing out new ideas and suggestions. The elderly man proved his high status when he pointed out the information about the witness wearing eyeglasses. That swayed the rest of the jurors. The low status members included, Whimpy, Klugman, the painter, Warden, Archie, the watchmaker, and Slick. Whimpy tried to voice his opinion, but was rarely listened too. Klugman was viewed as low status because of his life on the streets. The painter, Warden, the watchmaker, and Slick were all considered low status, because they barely contributed to the group’s decision. Archie is considered low status because of his racial insults. None of the jurors listened to him because they were all offended by his speech. In addition to status, power is also a big part of the movie. Every powerful individual was considered to be high status. Some people used their power for the good, others for the bad, and one person completely gave up his power. As the jurors begin their deliberation, the foreman was selected to be the leader of the group. He had legitimate power. He told the jurors that the vote has to be unanimous, that they have to sit in juror number order, and he tried to keep the group on task. After the foreman stopped using his power, Fonda and Cobb became more powerful. Fonda had an expert power. He suggested ideas and facts that the other jurors listened to. He influenced the group through their knowledge, thus an expert power. Cobb, however, had a coercive power. Cobb thought he could he could â€Å"punish† the other jurors into thinking his way. He would â€Å"punish† the other jurors by manipulating and belittling them.Also, Klugman had expert power for a couple minutes in the movie. His street knowledge about the knife and how it was used gains him this power. Although he had an expert power, he was not viewed in the same regard as Fonda. Most of the low status member did not have any power at all. Whimpy, the painter, Warden, Archie, the watchmaker, and Slick lacked the status to gain power. However, they did play an important role in power, because in a way, they gave the power to the people who had it. In a way, leadership and power go hand in hand. In this movie, the powerful individuals had at least a few leadership characteristics. The foreman had a chance at leadership, but he gave it up. Cobb had some negative leadership qualities that were eventually rejected. Fonda was the most important leader in this movie. He took over as a leader after foreman stepped down. He attended to maintenance needs, he proposed valid information, and was passionate toward swaying the group not to condemn the boy to death. As a leader, Fonda listened to the low status people when they had information to give. For example, Klugman had information about the knife that might have been overlooked if Fonda was not respectful of him. In the end, the group did arrive at a high quality decision. Although the case in the courtroom seems crystal clear that the boy was guilty, there were some misleading facts that were given. The jurors unanimously voted not guilty; however, they were not positive the boy was not guilty. There was not enough substantial evidence to prove if the boy did or did not stab his father. If the jury had voted guilty, the boy would have been condemned to death. This was a life or death decision, not just a guilty or not guilty. When the Fonda and some of the other jurors started to break down the evidence and the facts, they found the evidence to be misleading to the point were it might not be factual. Although the boy could have killed his father, there was reasonable doubt in the evidence to make the jurors believe the boy may be innocent. Even the possibility of condemning an innocent boy to death is horrifying. The group made the right high quality decision.

How Can I Help You - 1288 Words

Dan and I had agreed to go out a do a little shopping, mostly because I forced him to, but he seemed okay with it. We were just strolling through the mall when I couldn t help but stop and stare at this absolutely gorgeous locket. It was a white gold locket, a pair of wings on the front of it, the inside open for a picture. Could we go inside and see it? I asked Dan, a smile on my face. He gave a small sigh before gesturing for me to enter. I practically ran into the store, whenever it came to jewelry I was always asking like a kid in a candy store. I just loved rings, necklaces, bracelets, and especially earrings. I mean, I didn t get 2 ear piercings and 2 cartilage piercings for no reason. How can I help you two today? A small†¦show more content†¦I absolutely loved it, How much it is? I asked. She looked turned around to the computer behind her, typing in the serial number. It s 98 pounds. Shit, I said under my breath. Did you forget your wallet? Dan asked. I nodded, But hey, my birthday s coming up and if you need an idea for what to get me... He smiled, Alright, maybe. But don t get your hopes up. ~~~~ I always usually threw a nice party, filled with friends and of course, drinks. Thankfully I was able to get a hold of Ashleigh, Will, Kyle, and Woody to help me. I was putting up a couple balloons when Ashleigh finally realized who we were missing. Wait, where s Dan? She asked, glancing around for the dork. He said he might not make it, I said softly. He was always around for the birthday, no matter what. If he was touring he d Skype me or facetime me just to say happy birthday or he d send me something from the country he was visiting. He ll probably come late, Will chimed in. I shrugged, I don t know, it seemed like he wasn t even able to make it... He ll come. Trust me. Kyle said, putting up the last of the wall decorations. The rest of night was alright, it was fun to just hang out with friends and celebrate my 27th birthday. But I still couldn t get over the fact that Dan still didn t hear. Ashleigh and I were able to have everyone gone at around 1 AM, a pretty okay time for one of our birthday parties. I