Costcos Functions of Leadership Free Essay Example, 2000 words

The functions of leadership can be considered as the prime and foremost aspect that depicts organizational performances, capabilities as well as credibility within the business environment. The leadership functions also enable the organizations to adequately perform various important tasks in order to accomplish their respective business goals. The business leaders of any organization play a decisive part in adopting valuable decisions in various circumstances and formulating effective plans in order to accomplish organizational objectives. With this concern, it can be stated that the managers or leaders need to perform superior roles other than planning or organizing. The leader further needs to incorporate the skills of motivating, communicating, encouraging and guiding the subordinates to effectively comply with the organizational targets. The functions of a manager or a leader further encompass various activities such as conflict handling, problem-solving as well as providing ad equate support to effectively accomplish the organizational objectives (Lewis, Goodman, Fandt Michlitsch, 2007). In relation to the leading functions that are performed in Costco, it has been observed that the managers of the organization possess effective leadership skills that ultimately enhance its operational effectiveness at large. We will write a custom essay sample on Costco's Functions of Leadership or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now The managers of the organization are likely to make appropriate decisions concerning any issue that can hinder the performance of the organization. The leaders of the organization are highly dedicated to performing multiple roles that enable them to achieve desired business targets in the highly competitive retail industry. The leaders of the organization are also likely to perform various other functions such as workforce planning, training, and development, recruitment and selection, remuneration as well as performance appraisal of the workers. With this regard, it can be stated that the leaders of Costco are further observing to be the major group of individuals in terms of playing effective decisional as well as informational roles.

The Power of Language Essay examples - 1074 Words

The Power of Language Language plays an important role in communication by bringing people together and enriching their relationships. Language can also alienate those who do not speak it properly, or at all, from those who do. The essays, Mother Tongue, by Amy Tan, best known for her book, The Joy Luck Club, and Se Habla Espanol, by Tanya Barrientos, delve into the many powers that language holds. These essays reflect how by not speaking a language in proper form and by not speaking a language at all, affects the lives of the subjects of the stories. People who can speak a certain language, but only in ‘broken’ form, are generally looked down upon by native language speakers. In her writing, Mother Tongue, Amy Tan writes about her†¦show more content†¦However, many Hispanic families were and in some cases, still are viewed as lower-class citizens. According to Barrientos, â€Å"To me, speaking Spanish translated into being poor. It meant waiting tables and cleaning hotel rooms. It meant being left off the cheerleading squad and receiving a condescending smile from the guidance counselor when you said you planned on becoming a lawyer or a doctor† (561). They are not respected in a lot of communities, they live dirty, and they have bad jobs. These stereotypes are reasons why Barrientos did not want to be called Mexican and never wanted to learn Spanish. If diversity had been celebrated when Barrientos was a child, as it is celebrated and honored now, she would have grown up speaking Spanish and being pr oud of her heritage. Children are very impressionable and tend to take on others’ opinions as their own, but as they grow older, they develop a greater understanding and perspective of the way things are and the way they should be. As adults, both Tan and Barrientos learned to accept and embrace the languages that previously embarrassed them. Barrientos immersed herself in her Mexican heritage and enrolled in many Spanish classes. With each enrollment, she faced yet another stereotype that came with being of Mexican ethnicity; her instructors thought she should already know Spanish since she was Latina. Barrientos is now determined to learn her native language. Tan has learned to love the way inShow MoreRelatedLanguage : The Power Of Language1575 Words   |  7 PagesThe Power Of Language What is the meaning of language? How big the role of language in your life? Have you ever realize the impact of language in your life? In my opinion, language is not as simple as people seen in general. Usually the way people see language just as a tool for communicating with others. For me, behind the general usage of language, it also has a big role in our life because a language has the power to stand and show each person’s identity. Inside the Gloria Anzaldua’s essay â€Å"HowRead MoreThe Power of Language1300 Words   |  6 PagesThe Power of Language Bob Jones 11-19-96 period 3 Mrs. Fox Of all possible human qualities, the one that wields the most power is the ability to use, understand and communicate effectively through language. A proficient use of language allows us to clearly communicate an exact idea from one person to another person or group of people. This precise science of being able to convey exactly what you want equates to the acquisition of power. An important link betweenRead MoreThe Power Of Language1464 Words   |  6 PagesThe Power of Language Language is often defined   as a system of communication, a way for humans to interact with one another. Language itself can hold a great amount of power. It can express one s emotion, show love or hate, and could give meaning. For example an object has no identification unless the power of language is wielded to provide it a name based on its ability and function. Language often has a great influence on culture and religion. This is shown greatly in the cultures of the HebrewsRead MoreThe Power Of Language1931 Words   |  8 PagesNathalie Gregoire Professor Gladstone English 150 The Power Of Language In 1441 a nightmare was rained upon in african. For the first time, the life of slavery breathed on their land. tribes were torn apart and death was seen as the enemy. The europeans took the african people in shackles and forced them on a boat. for days and nights they sat crammed in one spot. dirt became part of their skin and bitterness tainted their hearts. many were hungry due to lack of food and sick due toRead More The Power of Language Essay793 Words   |  4 Pages The Power of Language nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;If I say that I am currently employed with a major petroleum distribution center, you may think that I am a highly qualified person making limitless amounts of money. However, I am using the power of language to merely say that I work at a gas station making minimum wage. Great historical figures throughout history have used the power of language, the ability to use words to their advantage, to inspire people to unite under one common cause andRead MoreEssay on The Power Of Language1283 Words   |  6 Pages The Power of Language nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Of all possible human qualities, the one that wields the most power is the ability to use, understand and communicate effectively through language. A proficient use of language allows us to clearly communicate an exact idea from one person to another person or group of people. This precise science of being able to convey exactly what you want equates to the acquisition of power. An important link between language and power is persuasionRead MorePower Of Language In Lolita816 Words   |  4 Pagescapability to withhold information, exaggerate, belittle, and overall use the power of language to subdue the reader to perceive the story as they see fit. Once the reader begins the story under a characters narration, they are submissive to hear the story in which ever way the narrator wishes to provide the events. Lolita is narrated by the unlawful pedophile himself- Humbert Humbert- who constantly uses the power of language, which allows him to trick the reader to succumb to his wanted perceptionRead MoreEnglish AS Language Essay - Language and Power958 Words   |  4 Pagesfrom language study, explore how written language is used to assert power Text H is a poster which displays the rules and information to students taking or entering an exam. It also is for the use of the invigilators, to inform them of the rules as well as the candidates. This poster will be shown right across the country to students preparing to take an exam. This is done to make sure there is regularity and equality everywhere, so that nowhere has different rules. The text asserts power usingRead MorePower Of Language Essay1390 Words   |  6 Pageslife and joy. Language is a very powerful tool used by everyone. Our language and the words we use every day have power to change lives and our world. Language is defined as a â€Å"method of communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured or conventional way (Google Dictionary).† Whether structured papers or rambling thoughts, everything we think has power because of language. Looking through the history and rules of language, we can see how language can change,Read MoreThe Power And Ethics Of Language1748 Words   |  7 PagesThe Power and Ethics of Language It was April 2010. David Cameron and Gordon Brown were the political frontrunners of Great Britain. However, that realization was irrelevant with what was about to happen. Everyone was watching as the highly-anticipated, first televised debates in the United Kingdom began. The discourse ended after several hours, and a new candidate quickly emerged as the leader. His name was Nick Clegg. He led the Liberal Democrats, the smallest party. One might think about it over

Social Responsibility of Business to Increase Its Profit free essay sample

Respond to the position made by Milton Freedman on corporate social responsibility at this site (if this does not connect directly please  copy and past on a separate web page on the URL line): http://www. ethicsinbusiness. net/case-studies/the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to-increase-its-profits/ Do you agree or disagree with Friedmans position? Why? What is most positive about his position? What is most negative about his position? This was written in 1970, does it apply in todays global/high tech  economy? Why or why not? The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits * An Executive Summary – The Social Responsibility of Business it to Increase its Profits The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits by Milton Friedman The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company. When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the â€Å"social responsibilities of business in a free-enterprise system,† I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free en ­terprise when they declaim that business is not concerned â€Å"merely† with profit but also with promoting desirable â€Å"social† ends; that business has a â€Å"social conscience† and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing em ­ployment, eliminating discrimination, avoid ­ing pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of re ­formers. In fact they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preach ­ing pure and unadulterated socialism. Busi ­nessmen who talk this way are unwitting pup ­pets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades. The discussions of the â€Å"social responsibili ­ties of business† are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it mean to say that â€Å"business† has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but â€Å"business† as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense. The first step toward clarity in examining the doctrine of the social responsibility of business is to ask precisely what it implies for whom. Presumably, the individuals who are to be responsible are businessmen, which means in ­dividual proprietors or corporate executives. Most of the discussion of social responsibility is directed at corporations, so in what follows I shall mostly neglect the individual proprietors and speak of corporate executives. In a free-enterprise, private-property sys ­tem, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct re ­sponsibility to his employers. That responsi ­bility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while con ­forming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective. A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose–for exam ­ple, a hospital or a school. The manager of such a corporation will not have money profit as his objective but the rendering of certain services. In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation or establish the eleemosynary institution, and his primary responsibility is to them. Needless to say, this does not mean that it is easy to judge how well he is performing his task. But at least the criterion of performance is straightforward, and the persons among whom a voluntary contractual arrangement exists are clearly defined. Of course, the corporate executive is also a person in his own right. As a person, he may have many other responsibilities that he rec ­ognizes or assumes voluntarily–to his family, his conscience, his feelings of charity, his church, his clubs, his city, his country. He ma}. feel impelled by these responsibilities to de ­vote part of his income to causes he regards as worthy, to refuse to work for particular corpo ­rations, even to leave his job, for example, to join his country’s armed forces. Ifwe wish, we may refer to some of these responsibilities as â€Å"social responsibilities. But in these respects he is acting as a principal, not an agent; he is spending his own money or time or energy, not the money of his employers or the time or energy he has contracted to devote to their purposes. If these are â€Å"social responsibili ­ties,† they are the social responsibilities of in ­dividuals, not of business. What does it mean to say that the corpo ­rate executive has a â€Å"social responsibility† in his capa city as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers. For example, that he is to refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the social objective of preventing inflation, even though a price in crease would be in the best interests of the corporation. Or that he is to make expendi ­tures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the cor ­poration or that is required by law in order to contribute to the social objective of improving the environment. Or that, at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire â€Å"hardcore† un ­employed instead of better qualified available workmen to contribute to the social objective of reducing poverty. In each of these cases, the corporate exec ­utive would be spending someone else’s money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his â€Å"social responsi ­bility† reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers’ money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money. The stockholders or the customers or the employees could separately spend their own money on the particular action if they wished to do so. The executive is exercising a distinct â€Å"social responsibility,† rather than serving as an agent of the stockholders or the customers or the employees, only if he spends the money in a different way than they would have spent it. But if he does this, he is in effect imposing taxes, on the one hand, and deciding how the tax proceeds shall be spent, on the other. This process raises political questions on two levels: principle and consequences. On the level of political principle, the imposition of taxes and the expenditure of tax proceeds are gov ­ernmental functions. We have established elab ­orate constitutional, parliamentary and judicial provisions to control these functions, to assure that taxes are imposed so far as possible in ac ­cordance with the preferences and desires of the public–after all, â€Å"taxation without repre ­sentation† was one of the battle cries of the American Revolution. We have a system of checks and balances to separate the legisla ­tive function of imposing taxes and enacting expenditures from the executive function of collecting taxes and administering expendi ­ture programs and from the judicial function of mediating disputes and interpreting the law. Here the businessman–self-selected or appointed directly or indirectly by stockhold ­ers–is to be simultaneously legislator, execu ­tive and, jurist. He is to decide whom to tax by how much and for what purpose, and he is to spend the proceeds–all this guided only by general exhortations from on high to restrain inflation, improve the environment, fight poverty and so on and on. The whole justification for permitting the corporate executive to be selected by the stockholders is that the executive is an agent serving the interests of his principal. This jus ­tification disappears when the corporate ex ­ecutive imposes taxes and spends the pro ­ceeds for â€Å"social† purposes. He becomes in effect a public employee, a civil servant, even though he remains in name an employee of a private enterprise. On grounds of political principle, it is intolerable that such civil ser ­vants–insofar as their actions in the name of social responsibility are real and not just win ­dow-dressing–should be selected as they are now. If they are to be civil servants, then they must be elected through a political process. If they are to impose taxes and make expendi ­tures to foster â€Å"social† objectives, then politi ­cal machinery must be set up to make the as ­sessment of taxes and to determine through a political process the objectives to be served. This is the basic reason why the doctrine of â€Å"social responsibility† involves the acceptance of the socialist view that political mechanisms, not market mechanisms, are the appropriate way to determine the allocation of scarce re ­sources to alternative uses. On the grounds of consequences, can the corporate executive in fact discharge his al ­leged â€Å"social responsibilities? † On the other hand, suppose he could get away with spending the stockholders’ or customers’ or employees’ money. How is he to know how to spend it? He is told that he must contribute to fighting inflation. How is he to know what ac ­tion of his will contribute to that end? He is presumably an expert in running his company–in producing a product or selling it or financing it. But nothing about his selection makes him an expert on inflation. Will his hold ­ ing down the price of his product reduce infla ­tionary pressure? Or, by leaving more spending power in the hands of his customers, simply divert it elsewhere? Or, by forcing him to produce less because of the lower price, will it simply contribute to shortages? Even if he could an ­swer these questions, how much cost is he justi ­fied in imposing on his stockholders, customers and employees for this social purpose? What is his appropriate share and what is the appropri ­ate share of others? And, whether he wants to or not, can he get away with spending his stockholders’, cus ­tomers’ or employees’ money? Will not the stockholders fire him? (Either the present ones or those who take over when his actions in the name of social responsibility have re ­duced the corporation’s profits and the price of its stock. ) His customers and his employees can desert him for other producers and em ­ployers less scrupulous in exercising their so ­cial responsibilities. This facet of â€Å"social responsibility† doc ­ trine is brought into sharp relief when the doctrine is used to justify wage restraint by trade unions. The conflict of interest is naked and clear when union officials are asked to subordinate the interest of their members to some more general purpose. If the union offi ­cials try to enforce wage restraint, the consequence is likely to be wildcat strikes, rank ­-and-file revolts and the emergence of strong competitors for their jobs. We thus have the ironic phenomenon that union leaders–at least in the U. S. –have objected to Govern ­ment interference with the market far more consistently and courageously than have business leaders. The difficulty of exercising â€Å"social responsibility† illustrates, of course, the great virtue of private competitive enterprise–it forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to â€Å"exploit† other people for either selfish or unselfish purposes. They can do good–but only at their own expense. Many a reader who has followed the argu ­ment this far may be tempted to remonstrate that it is all well and good to speak of Government’s having the responsibility to im ­pose taxes and determine expenditures for such â€Å"social† purposes as controlling pollu ­tion or training the hard-core unemployed, but that the problems are too urgent to wait on the slow course of political processes, that the exercise of social responsibility by busi ­nessmen is a quicker and surer way to solve pressing current problems. Aside from the question of fact–I share Adam Smith’s skepticism about the benefits that can be expected from â€Å"those who affected to trade for the public good†Ã¢â‚¬â€œthis argument must be rejected on grounds of principle. What it amounts to is an assertion that those who favor the taxes and expenditures in question have failed to persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to be of like mind and that they are seeking to attain by undemocratic procedures what they cannot attain by democratic proce ­dures. In a free society, it is hard for â€Å"evil† people to do â€Å"evil,† especially since one an’s good is another’s evil. I have, for simplicity, concentrated on the special case of the corporate executive, ex ­cept only for the brief digression on trade unions. But precisely the same argument ap ­plies to the newer phenomenon of calling upon stockholders to require corporations to exercise social responsibility (the recent G. M crusade for example). In most of these cases, what is in effect involved is some stockholders trying to get other stockholders (or customers or employees) to contribute against their will to â€Å"social† causes favored by the activists. In ­sofar as they succeed, they are again imposing taxes and spending the proceeds. The situation of the individual proprietor is somewhat different. If he acts to reduce the returns of his enterprise in order to exercise his â€Å"social responsibility,† he is spending his own money, not someone else’s. If he wishes to spend his money on such purposes, that is his right, and I cannot see that there is any ob ­jection to his doing so. In the process, he, too, may impose costs on employees and cus ­tomers. However, because he is far less likely than a large corporation or union to have mo ­nopolistic power, any such side effects will tend to be minor. Of course, in practice the doctrine of social responsibility is frequently a cloak for actions that are justified on other grounds rather than a reason for those actions. To illustrate, it may well be in the long run interest of a corporation that is a major employer in a small community to devote resources to providing amenities to that community or to improving its government. That may make it easier to attract desirable employees, it may reduce the wage bill or lessen losses from pilferage and sabotage or have other worthwhile effects. Or it may be that, given the laws about the deductibility of corporate charitable contributions, the stockholders can contribute more to chari ­ties they favor by having the corporation make the gift than by doing it themselves, since they can in that way contribute an amount that would otherwise have been paid as corporate taxes. In each of these–and many similar–cases, there is a strong temptation to rationalize these actions as an exercise of â€Å"social responsibility. † In the present climate of opinion, with its wide spread aversion to â€Å"capitalism,† â€Å"profits,† the â€Å"soulless corporation† and so on, this is one way for a corporation to generate goodwill as a by-product of expenditures that are entirely justified in its own self-interest. It would be inconsistent of me to call on corporate executives to refrain from this yp ­ocritical window-dressing because it harms the foundations of a free society. That would be to call on them to exercise a â€Å"social re ­sponsibility†! If our institutions, and the atti ­tudes of the public make it in their self-inter ­est to cloak their actions in this way, I cannot summon much indignation to denounce them. At the same time, I can express admiration for those individual proprietors or owners of closely held corporations or stockholders of more broadly held corporations who disdain such tactics as approaching fraud. Whether blameworthy or not, the use of the cloak of social responsibility, and the nonsense spoken in its name by influential and presti ­gious businessmen, does clearly harm the foun ­dations of a free society. I have been impressed time and again by the schizophrenic character of many businessmen. They are capable of being extremely farsighted and clearheaded in matters that are internal to their businesses. They are incredibly shortsighted and muddle ­headed in matters that are outside their businesses but affect the possible survival of busi ­ness in general. This shortsightedness is strikingly exemplified in the calls from many businessmen for wage and price guidelines or controls or income policies. There is nothing that could do more in a brief period to destroy a market system and replace it by a centrally con ­trolled system than effective governmental con ­trol of prices and wages. The shortsightedness is also exemplified in speeches by businessmen on social respon ­sibility. This may gain them kudos in the short run. But it helps to strengthen the already too prevalent view that the pursuit of profits is wicked and immoral and must be curbed and controlled by external forces. Once this view is adopted, the external forces that curb the market will not be the social consciences, however highly developed, of the pontificating executives; it will be the iron fist of Government bureaucrats. Here, as with price and wage controls, businessmen seem to me to reveal a suicidal impulse. The political principle that underlies the market mechanism is unanimity. In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any other, all coopera ­tion is voluntary, all parties to such coopera ­tion benefit or they need not participate. There are no values, no â€Å"social† responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form. The political principle that underlies the political mechanism is conformity. The indi ­vidual must serve a more general social inter ­est–whether that be determined by a church or a dictator or a majority. The individual may have a vote and say in what is to be done, but if he is overruled, he must conform. It is appropriate for some to require others to contribute to a general social purpose whether they wish to or not. Unfortunately, unanimity is not always feasi ­ble. There are some respects in which conformity appears unavoidable, so I do not see how one can avoid the use of the political mecha ­nism altogether. But the doctrine of â€Å"social responsibility† taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity. It does not differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collectivist doctrine. It differs only by professing to believe that collectivist ends can be attained without collectivist means. That is why, in my book Capitalism and Freedom, I have called it a â€Å"fundamentally subversive doctrine† in a free society, and have said that in such a society, â€Å"there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud. †

Literal Rule free essay sample

Using case law illustrations, explain how the literal rule of statutory interpretation operates and how the golden rule modifies the literal rule. Statutory interpretation is the process used by courts to interpret and apply legislation, although Acts of Parliament are written by expert draftsmen, the statute for the case before them may not be clear. Bennion (2005) has identified a number of issues that may cause uncertainty: The draftsman may refrain from using certain words as they think it has already been automatically implied, also the definition of the word can be broad which causes uncertainty ,the wording of the statute can be deficient due to a printing or a drafting error. There are three rules, courts use to interpret statutes, they are known as, The Literal Rule, The Golden Rule and The Mischief Rule. Under The Literal rule, words in a statute are given their plain, ordinary meaning even if it leads to an absurd ending; this was shown in R v City of London Court Judge (1892), Lord Esher said â€Å"If the words of an Act are clear you must follow them, even though they lead to manifest absurdity. We will write a custom essay sample on Literal Rule or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurdity†. Another case which illustrates the literal rule is Whitely V Chapell (1868), under a statute it is a offence to impersonate another person who is ‘entitled to vote’ in an election, D had used a dead person’s name to vote in an election, using the literal rule, D was acquitted as a dead person is not ‘entitled to vote. ’ If the words used in a statute are ambiguous and lead to an absurd outcome, courts are allowed to modify the meaning to avoid the problem; this is known as The Golden rule.