Summary On The Allegory Of Shirley Jacksons The Lottery

Shirley Jackson’s story â€Å"The Lottery† serves as an allegory regarding humankinds inherent to be cruel and society’s ability to inure to violence. The author’s use of a third-person dramatic narrative combined with strong themes, symbols and irony clearly supports the lesson Jackson was trying to portray. Jackson’s short story shows how easy it is to be hostile when a group of villagers with a herd mentality blindly follow an outdated tradition and that evil knows no boundaries. Jackson starts the story out depicting the day as â€Å"clear and sunny, with the fresh warmth of a full-summer day; the flowers were blossoming profusely and the grass was richly green† (Jackson 1). The village men were â€Å"speaking of planting and rain,†¦show more content†¦This statement supports what Jackson was trying to convey because rather than the villagers knowing the meaning behind the ritual, they can only remember the murderous, violent p art of it. This ceremony had become so customary and routine that even the children had made â€Å"piles of stones† ready to participate in the lottery. Children are supposed to be considered innocent and uncorrupt but in this story it just goes to show that cruelty is inherent. Jackson’s story also displays the theme of hypocrisy. The author uses the story’s target Tessie Hutchinson to represent that theme. The audience could assume that Tessie is well known village woman who only any normal day would partake in this event. When Tessie discovers her fate as the winner she becomes self-serving saying â€Å"it isn’t fair, it isn’t right† (Jackson 7). It is duplicitous because if she was not the victim then she would have no objections, but now that she is the fatality the lottery suddenly is corrupt. The author aimed to indicate that society has a predisposition to become habituated to unkind things so long as they believe they will not be ne gatively affected by it. The author uses contextual symbols and symbols in general to support â€Å"The Lottery’s† meaning. Mr. Summers name is an example of a contextual symbol. The word summer would make the audience think of new beginnings and positivity. Mr. Summers isShow MoreRelatedThe Lottery, By Shirley Jackson850 Words   |  4 Pages  «The lottery » by Shirley Jackson provides a good example how superstitions of people from a tiny town affect on those traditions. This story shows dark side of Humanity. Whole community entrusts their life with a small black box. The allegory can confuse you, because the main purpose of the  «lottery » is kill one of the citizens for a strange false belief. To my mind, the author tried to explain why new generation sometimes shouldn’t continue the weird and cruel traditions.  «The lottery » is anRead MoreAnalysis Of The Poem The Lottery By Shirley Jackson844 Words   |  4 PagesThe Response Essay on  «The lottery » What is the difference between superstitions and traditions?  «The lottery » by Shirley Jackson provides a good example of how people’s superstitions from a tiny town affect those traditions. This story shows the dark side of Humanity. The whole community entrusts their lifes to a small black box. The allegory can confuse you, because the main purpose of the lottery kills one of the citizens for a strange false belief. To my mind, the author tried to explain whyRead MoreANALIZ TEXT INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS28843 Words   |  116 Pagesas description, dialogue and action. Other incidents will be given relatively less emphasis through deliberate subordination. In the latter case, the author may shorten the dramatic elements of the scene or eliminate them altogether in favour of summary – in favour of telling, rather than showing. All these episodes, major or minor, need to advance the plot in precisely the same way or at the same pace, although the reader does hav e the right to expect that each will contribute in some way to a completed

Plant #2 Free Essays

1) Using budget data, 176,087 iPhone 4’s must be completed on a monthly basis in order for Danshui Plant No. 2 to break even. The first step is to calculate the contribution margin which is equal to the budgeted revenue, $41,240,000, minus the variable costs, $40,412,000, which gives us a contribution margin of $828,000. We will write a custom essay sample on Plant #2 or any similar topic only for you Order Now If we divide this number by the number of units, 200,000, we find the contribution margin per unit to be $4. 14. Now, all we need are the fixed costs, which are budgeted as $729,000 per month. Plugging these values into the break-even point formula we find BEP=729,000/4. 14=176,087 units. ) Using budget data, the total expected cost per unit is $205. 70 and the actual cost per unit is $211. 94. Since manufacturing and shipping are both taken into account we need to focus on both variable and fixed costs. To find the total expected cost per unit we must add the budgeted variable costs, $40,411,000, and add them to the budgeted fixed costs, $729,000, and divide the sum of these numbers by 200,000 units. This gives the result of $205. 70 expected cost per unit. To find the actual cost per unit the process is the same except we use the data from the actual column in exhibit three. So we have the variable costs at $37,412,000, add the fixed costs of $736,000 to this number, then divide by the number of units, 180,000, and we find the actual total cost per unit to be $211. 94. 3) In order to prepare a flexible budget for 180,000 iPhone 4’s you can either use exhibit 1 and values and multiply them by the number of units, 180,000, or you can do what I did, which is take the values in the monthly budged section of exhibit 3 and multiply them by 9/10 which is the simplification of 180,000/200,000. Here are all the values I calculated: Revenue:$37,116,000 Flash Memory:$4,860,000 Application Process:$1,935,000 Chips-Phone:$2,529,000 Gyroscope:$468,000 8 Other Chips:$12,771,000 Total Variable Costs From Materials:$22,563,000 Variable Supplies and Tools Labor:$11,256,300 Assembly and Packing:$2,359,800 Shipping:$190,800 Total Variable Costs:$36,369,900 Factory Rent:$400,000 Machine Depreciation:$150,000 Utility Fee and Taxes:$52,000 Supervision:$127,000 Total Fixed Costs:$729,000 Total Costs:$37,098,900 Net Income:$17,100. The variance for each respective value (in order) is to be indicated by an H or L. H meaning that the actual value is higher than the flexible budget value, and L meaning that the actual value is lower than the flexible budget value. The variances are 0 units, $360,000H, $389,000H, 0, 0, 0, $128,000L, $261,000H, $48,700H, $732,200H, $200H, $1,042,100H, 0, 0, 0, $7,000H, $7,000H, $1,049,100H, $689,100L. How to cite Plant #2, Papers

Understanding Organization Approaches Theory and Practice

Question: Describe about the Understanding Organization Approaches for Theory and Practice. Answer: The diversity of the approaches used by organizations to execute their managerial activities has contributed to the existence of several philosophies regarding the managerial theories for organizational structures. The nature of the internal and external environment of operations has defined the nature of implementations and success achieved in the organizations as well as the associated challenges and risks. This paper evaluates the concepts associated with the Organizational Culture Theory and the Dynamic Capabilities Theory as applied to the Google Inc. set up. The paper gives an overview of the firm and highlights the philosophies related to the theories. The paper examines how the two theories have been applied and the resultant effects. Under the limitations, the paper outlines the challenges that emanated based on the approaches that were taken as mitigation measures. Finally, the excerpt suggests a set of recommendations that the organization could adopt for success and effec tiveness. The paper concludes that the two theories assisted the organization to solve the existing challenges, but the aspect of long-term view was not incorporated. Overview of the Organization Google is an American-based multinational corporation that specializes in technology where the company is offering services and products that are internet-based. The organization has focused the available resources assisting in filling the gaps regarding technology needs within the corporate sector. The firm, therefore, offers online advertisement services, search engines, a variety of software and cloud computing. The larger part of the income for the organization is derived from the Adwords, which is a technique that is used within the website portals to place several advertisements close to search results (Google Inc. 2016). Sergey Brin and Larry Page founded the Google Inc., and the rate of growth has seen the organization being listed among the profitable ventures across the globe. In 2015, the firm reorganized was structure and interests as Alphabet Inc. leading to Google being the primary subsidiary for the former. The restructuring of the business increased the capacity of th e firm to enjoy rapid growth and external investments boosting the anticipated income margins. Currently, the firm has over 57,000 employees with headquarters at Googleplex, Mountain View, California. The organization is proud to be running over one million data center servers across the world (Google Inc. 2016). Overview of the Dynamic Capabilities Theory The existence of diversity in the resource base for organizations creates the need to achieve the anticipated goals based on the set objective and the nature of engagements. The dynamic capabilities theory of organizations describes the how organization need to develop competencies that are essential when adapting to changes within the environment of operation based on the available resources and the outlined methodologies of achieving the set goals and objectives (Pisano 1999; Pisano 2001). The focus of the organization is built around the need to react adequately and timely when faced with a dynamic change, which depends on the multiple capabilities within the organization structure and resources (Maliutin 2015). The competence, interest, experience, and levels of motivation of the workers determine to what extent the rapid changes will be controlled and managed. The theory affirms that the extent to which changes are managed based on available resources in an organizational enviro nment defines the success of the organization. Moreover, the theory ascertains the magnitude of achievement within a firm regarding the creation of a sustainable and competent atmosphere as well as enhancing the rate of growth and development depends not only on the input resources but also on the available skills and experiences. Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that the existence of the concepts explained in the theory as factors determining the success of a change process such as the internal and external capabilities may lead to either organizational uncertainties or success. Such occurrence depends on the approaches, policies, and the culture of the organization (Wright 2016; Miles 2012). However, several techniques exist that can be applied to enhance the capabilities of an organization such restructuring, cooperation and mergers, and use of technology. Overview of the Organizational Culture Theory The organizational culture theory describes how firms can adopt psychological and social factors that will define how the organization will be operating (Denison and Mishra 1995). Such an environment is essential when one is seeking to organize an enterprise, offer leadership assistance, or even to solve the problems emanating from the internal and external environment associated with the corporation (Fichtner and Freiling 2002). According to the theory, several scenarios occur in a business environment depending on the industry, the brands and services, the nature of resources, and the capital of operation among other internal and external environment factors (Miles 2012). The establishment of a culture is a process when offering the leadership responses, making improvement and decisions, and setting strategies for implementation. Therefore, an organization can be assessed based on a particular complex state that outlines the existence and state of employees, the customers, and the activities of the business. Moreover, the theory is based on the capacity of leaders to maintain a consistent methodology of operation based on internal and external influences while initiating structures within their scope of operation. The factors of competence and experience are essential in defining the success of the applicability of this theory. The theory presents organizations as entities that are complex but adaptive in nature that can depend on active management and planning that abides to the culture of the firm. The process of creating a culture involves typical methods to design, manage, and control the organization and the associated activities, which focuses on the tasks, challenges, resources, and environment. The goal of the management should be fixed towards aligning and fitting the set objectives based on the existing circumstances (Hallett 2003). Case Analysis of the Theories: Organizational Evaluation Dynamic Capabilities Theory in Google Company The motto of the Google Inc. has been Dont be Evil, which may seem eccentric because the focus of the business activities is to generate profit. However, the organization has been adhering to this directive over the years. Each of the activities carried out by the firm has been based on the needs of the customers and the corporate market. The need to integrate the interests and desires of the targeted population to derive preference has made the business to evaluate each market trend and apply necessary measures. The experience and expertise in understanding the market has enabled the business to make effective decisions. The company has been keen in employing the philosophies of the famous dynamic capabilities theory to make critical internal and external moves and implementation within the organization. The operation and the revenue of the business as limited regarding the scope of service and the company needed a stable baseline of operation. Therefore, the organization decided to reorganize the interest of the firm to be a holding company. In 2005, Google Inc. was announced as the primary subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., which gave the company an opportunity to increase the products and services in the market as well as enhancing their scope of operation (Yarow 2015). Since then the business has been enjoying the rapid growth, acquisitions, and partnerships meant to increase the profit margin. According to the dynamic capabilities theory, the capacity to handle an existing scenario in a corporation include a strategy meant to succinctly adjust to changes in the business objectives and the making of effective decisions based on respective assessments (Schweizer, Rogbeer, and Michaelis 2015). Therefore, when Google Inc. was making lower profits, the move to become a holding company was concurrent with the need for higher profit. The organization has to make bi-dimensional thinking and analysis on ways to maintain the customers needs, preferences, and loyalty as well as generating high returns. The decision of being a primary subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. was reached through a thorough analysis with the board of management and investment experts. The company considered making different measures and prepare for the associated risks (Smithson 2015). Furthermore, the evaluation of the assumptions of the theory gives credit not only to the expertise of the organizations management but also to their experience in evaluating the scenarios by incorporating the internal and external factors to minimize the associated risks. The group has achieved the part of the profit targets, and more effort is focused towards creating a culture that will sustain and guarantee profitability. Organizational Culture Theory in Google Company Google Inc. is proud being part of the private organization offering over 50,000 employment opportunities to different people across the globe. The firm has worked towards the improvement of the working conditions of the employees as measure to create an innovative culture for the firm (Google Inc. 2016). Previously, the company was offering the lowest remunerations for their workers within the industry compared to their competitors such as the Silicon Valley firms. Google Inc. faced the challenges of maintaining their employees and acquiring the best skills for the organizational development. The burden lies with the management that needs to ensure that the subordinates deliver the expected results. Therefore, it was crucial for the firm to undertake measures that will improve the relationship between the subordinates and the principal for the success of the organization. The motivation for workers and better working terms and conditions are essential to the interests of the employe es to be within the scope of operation of the organization. According to the organizational culture theory, the process of developing a suitable culture for effective production of goods and services, including sustaining the welfare of workers, defines the success of the team when management compensation is applied (Lavine 2006). Therefore, the company undertook several measures including the harmonization of the workers pay within the industry in addition to production costs. The management resorted to increasing the salary of the employees as well as maintaining the benefits that were used for retention purposes. The reorganization of the company required the commitment of the employees as well as a close corporate association between the management and the workers to enhance the implementation of the strategic plan (Yarow 2015). The position as a major subsidiary of the Alphabet Inc. came with the need for a long-term view to the anticipated success and greater focus on inputs and outcomes by controlling the production costs within the firm. To achieve a better working environment, the company offers the employees additional services such as free daycare, transport facilitation, social, and recreational facilities within the workplace to improve their dedication and interest towards work. Besides, as a mea sure to improve innovation, the employees are expected to apply the 70/20/10 strategy each day. Each worker is supposed to dedicate their efforts towards implementing the existing policies, which is estimated to take 70% of their daily working hours. On the other hand, 20% is channeled towards the evaluation of their implementations to ascertain the extent of success and possibility of risks. Finally, the remaining 10% is for innovative thinking to steer the objectives of the firm to successful heights (Thompson 2016). Such a move was essential in developing the culture of the firm. Limitations The focus on the organizational culture and dynamic capabilities in management affairs has increased the level of creativity within the organization. The company has introduced many products in the market within a very short period. The business has been growing at a rapid rate. The influence of the products from the firm is felt within the targeted market and the competition circles. However, a corresponding revenue margin has not been witnessed (Smithson 2015). The business has used resources to study the need for their potential and existing customers and through innovation designed the brands and services that align with the needs of the market. Therefore, the products are preferred than those from competitors; however, a significant revenue is not achieved since new and improved products are created. The company does not have a clear focus on the resource management approaches meant to strike a balance between the capital invested and the anticipated and real profit margins. Furthermore, the success of the business is tied to the frequency of the use of search engines integrated with advertisements. The management, seeking to increase the profit capacity, introduced the free products to enhance the number of those who will be reached with the search engine advertisements that is incorporated within the Internet-based products. Therefore, the need to reach more people increased the number of free products, which reduced the profit margin and the revenue collected from the activities of the business. Moreover, the approaches employed to enhance and support the culture of the business have increased the wage and remuneration expenses since the additional motivation benefits meant to increase employees commitment are capital intensive such as the social services, transportation, and daycare. Such a move cannot allow the company to reap high returns from the capital invested in the developed products (Thompson 2016; Yarow 2015). Recommendations As a manager, Google Inc. should consider taking managerial and structural adjustments and focus. The business needs to consider balancing the resources used to facilitate the production of products and services for the targeted market and the revenue that emanates from such brands over a particular period (Yilmazer and Schrank 2010). The processes of setting up the necessary factors of a measure will assist in making the decision based not only on the existing circumstances but also on the ability of the firm to sustain the associated risks. A possibility exists for a business to make substantial revenue by underutilizing the current potential and resources (Sitlington 2012). Such a scenario may result in a slower rate of growth than when the organization is committed to maximizing the existing avenues to generate extra income. The organizational culture approach is not always reliable since the business sometimes needs to apply previously designed methodologies of leadership and de cision-making whenever the circumstances correspond to sample problems. Moreover, the organization should be caution when seeking to improve the capabilities of the firm not to increase the cost of operation or deviate from the corporate goals and objectives. Therefore, the firm should focus on essential human resource requirements and compliance and control the motivational approaches to human resource team (Nankervis and Stanton 2010). Conclusion In conclusion, the Google Inc. has been operating as a multinational technology company based in the United States. The organizations management has been keen in evaluating the market trends and integrating essential elements in the production of products and services. A succinct analysis of the organizational performance and management shows how the activities of the firm majorly revolve around the organizational culture theory and the dynamic capabilities theory. The leadership of the organization has concentrated on improving the welfare of the employees and increasing the shareholder's wealth, which has affected the revenue margin. The business capitalized on the competition in the industry and focused on producing products and services regularly to cater to the changing needs of the organization; however, such a move increased the number of free products to enhance the amount of profit generated from product-based advertisements within the search engines. Nevertheless, the compa ny needs also to focus on the resource-based organizational management to ensure that the inputs correlate to the generated revenue over the distinct periods. Besides, the business needs to control the measures used to enhance the culture and capabilities of the organization to avoid increased overhead costs and expenditure, which tend to reduce the revenue margin. References Denison, D. R. and Mishra, A. K., 1995. Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness, Organization Science, 6(2), pp. 204223. Fichtner, H. and Freiling, J., 2002. Organizational culture, organizational ambiance Competences: A competence-based theory of the firm, SSRN Electronic Journal, 110(1). Google Inc., 2016. About the Company Google. Available at: https://www.google.com/about/company/(Accessed: 7 September 2016) Hallett, T., 2003. Symbolic power and organizational culture, Sociological Theory, 21(2), pp. 128149. Levine, S., 2006. High performance organizations: Creating a culture of agreement, Handbook of Business Strategy, 7(1), pp. 375380. Maliutin, A., 2015. Managing changes in the Innovational activity of regional organizations, Problems of Economic Transition, 57(9), pp. 5461. Miles, R. E., 2012. The centrality of organization design, Journal of Organization Design, 1(1). Nankervis, A. and Stanton, P., 2010. Managing employee performance in small organisations: Challenges and opportunities, International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 10(2), p. 136. Pisano, G. P., 2001. Towards a prescriptive theory of dynamic capabilities: Connecting strategic choice, learning, and competition, SSRN Electronic Journal, 183. Pisano, G. P., 1999. A normative theory of dynamic capabilities: Connecting strategy, know- how, and competition, SSRN Electronic Journal, 18. Schweizer, L., Rogbeer, S. and Michaelis, B., 2015. The dynamic capabilities perspective: From fragments to meta-theory, Management Research Review, 38(7), pp. 662684. Sitlington, H., 2012. Knowledge sharing: Implications for downsizing and restructuring outcomes in Australian organisations, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(1), pp. 110127. Smithson, N., 2015. Googles organizational structure organizational culture - Panmore institute. Available at:https://panmore.com/google-organizational-structure-organizational-culture(Accessed: 7 September 2016) Thompson, S., 2016. Googles business leadership and organizational culture, Small Business Chron, Wright, J., 2016. A theory of situated creativity and organizational dynamic capabilities, IJASOS- International E-journal of Advances in Social Sciences, 2(5), p. 485. Yarow, J., 2015. Google just announced a massive overhaul of its business structure. Available at:https://www.businessinsider.com/google-new-operating-structure-2015-8(Accessed: 7 September 2016) Yilmazer, T. and Schrank, H., 2010. The use of owner resources in small and family owned businesses: Literature review and future research directions, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31(4), pp. 399413.