Huanting Of Hill House Essay example -- essays research papers

THE HAUNTING ON HILL HOUSE Eleanor Vance has always been a loner shy, defenseless, and angrily resentful of the 11 years she lost while nursing her dying mother. She had spent so long alone, with no one to love, never had a real home and without any happiness in her life. Eleanor has always sensed that one day something big would happen, and one day it does. She receives an unusual invitation from Dr. John Montague, a man fascinated by "supernatural manifestations." He had been looking for a haunted house all his life. Then He heard about Hill House and he knows that he couldn’t let it go. His intentions with Hill House, was to go there, live there for a while and take notes of everything that occurs within the house, kind of like ghost hunting. So he rents Hill House for three months, organizes a ghost watch, inviting three people who have been touched by unearthly events. A psychic event from Eleanor's childhood makes her qualify to be a part of Montague's unusual study, along with stub born Theodora who was the not thing like Eleanor, and Luke who is the nephew of the owner of Hill House. The reason for him being there is because the family lawyer told Dr. Montague that he couldn’t rent the house without the confining presence of a member of the family during his stay. They all meet at Hill House an estate in New England. This is where i...

My Dad and Old Cars Essay -- Personal Narrative Writing

My Dad and Old Cars Some people bring home stray dogs. My father brings home stray cars. He gets emotionally attached and eventually puts them on life support. This keeps them viable long beyond the time other family members vote to pull the plug. He drives a 1968 VW van that chugs along on its third rebuilt engine. My big brother vows to bury dad in it. The 1971 VW Bug that he used for fifteen years is still operable, but since a teenager's foot went through the rusted floorboards to the street below, it's been relegated to the retirement home: his driveway. He continues paying on the life insurance policy but he has signed a "Do Not Resuscitate" waiver. My father went off to college in a 1931 Model A Ford. In the back seat of that car, on an old country road, I made love for the first time. Now it sits under a blue parachute in the driveway. Mice breed in the upholstery and the ceiling fabric hangs in shreds, but my father is convinced the car will awaken from its coma and live to cruise again. A 1960 Plymouth Valiant that drove like a tank and sounded like a B-52 suffered sudden paralysis one car-pooling morning when both front wheels turned at right angles to the frame of the car, bringing it to a sudden and permanent halt. Unwilling to assign the car to a nameless grave in Potter's Field, my father paid to have it hauled to a vocational school. Prince Valiant became a vehicular cadaver; the old thing may even have become an organ donor. We don't buy new cars. According to my dad, "You never know what might go wrong with a new car, and you could get a lemon." I say, "But we know even less about a used car. People don't sell their cars when everything's fine. They sell them when things start going wrong." ... ...car key. My dad, the guy with the soft spot for homeless old cars in need of a square meal and a soft bed, had made good on a long-standing promise of "a decent car." It took him six months of scouring the ads, but he'd bought me a car that's only five years old. It's an Acura Legend and appears to be in excellent health. The leather seats are as comfortable as the Peugeot's, no gremlins live in the CD player, and the AC and heating systems have no viruses. The sunroof is dry as a bone, and the car starts whenever I turn the key. Overall, I'd say the car has a superb attitude. That first morning of new ownership, I stood staring in awe at this white beauty. Then the rest of my life spread before me as my father said, "And we can give it to Bria when she starts driving. It should have all the bugs worked out of it by then." Bria is my five-year-old niece.

Essay --

Typical of our fights, it always ends with one of us banging the door, and walking away in fury. It has always been our way of letting the other know that we are pissed beyond the thin stretch that separates sane from the absolutely insane phase of things. Sigh. Well, to tell the truth, I am the one who does the banging of the door most of the time. Anyway, early this month we moved into a new house, and perhaps it was the pressure of moving, coupled with our tendency not agreeing with things that matter (Like me insisiting that we need new curtains and him insisting that our old curtains will work just fine in covering our windows, cus after all, they are just curtains *Sigh*) So he yells: DO WHAT YOU WANT†¦ and Bang! He slams the door behind him, and I hear his car speeding off into the blackness of the night. Inside me, am seething with deep anger†¦.damn! he cant just leave like that! Yaani! How can he just leave like that? In the middle of an argument? He just drives off and leaves me talking to myself like a maniac? Where do his priorities lie? I pick my phone and start writing him a text about how much of an insensitive coward he is, and that he should come back home so that we square it like adults *Giggling* but I stop myself because I am the mature one in the fight, and I read somewhere that fighting through texts is for teenagers and errm, new loves who have subscribed to unlimited texts. Anyway, I am soooo furious at him that I can barely touch my supper. I just take plenty of cookies and coca cola and suffer through it *Giggling again* I am in such a bad place that I heap more cookies to my plate and eat them slowly, munching while replaying the argument on my head†¦.over and over†¦. I had fought it so logically, lo... ...in to her. She giggles on the other end. I hang up. My other sister is on the call wait. I explain to her too. She clicks and says: â€Å"Na venye umetuamsha tukilala. Nkt.† Then she hangs up. I tell mister how he has made me worry people. He stifles laughter and tells me â€Å"It was just clothes that had fallen, you didn’t almost die†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Suddenly, I analyse the whole thing in my head and I find it kinda funny. I start laughing too. So we laugh~ â€Å"But I could have been surrounded by thugs. And you were not here†¦I tell him with a pout. He looks me in the eye, the kind that makes me blush, and he moves his face so close to mine till I can smell the distant whiff of alcohol in his breath hit me in the face. â€Å"Even if I was here, what could I have done†¦.† He asks, a playful smile on his face. And he moves his face even closer, till I feel the graze of his dry lips on mine†¦. Essay -- Typical of our fights, it always ends with one of us banging the door, and walking away in fury. It has always been our way of letting the other know that we are pissed beyond the thin stretch that separates sane from the absolutely insane phase of things. Sigh. Well, to tell the truth, I am the one who does the banging of the door most of the time. Anyway, early this month we moved into a new house, and perhaps it was the pressure of moving, coupled with our tendency not agreeing with things that matter (Like me insisiting that we need new curtains and him insisting that our old curtains will work just fine in covering our windows, cus after all, they are just curtains *Sigh*) So he yells: DO WHAT YOU WANT†¦ and Bang! He slams the door behind him, and I hear his car speeding off into the blackness of the night. Inside me, am seething with deep anger†¦.damn! he cant just leave like that! Yaani! How can he just leave like that? In the middle of an argument? He just drives off and leaves me talking to myself like a maniac? Where do his priorities lie? I pick my phone and start writing him a text about how much of an insensitive coward he is, and that he should come back home so that we square it like adults *Giggling* but I stop myself because I am the mature one in the fight, and I read somewhere that fighting through texts is for teenagers and errm, new loves who have subscribed to unlimited texts. Anyway, I am soooo furious at him that I can barely touch my supper. I just take plenty of cookies and coca cola and suffer through it *Giggling again* I am in such a bad place that I heap more cookies to my plate and eat them slowly, munching while replaying the argument on my head†¦.over and over†¦. I had fought it so logically, lo... ...in to her. She giggles on the other end. I hang up. My other sister is on the call wait. I explain to her too. She clicks and says: â€Å"Na venye umetuamsha tukilala. Nkt.† Then she hangs up. I tell mister how he has made me worry people. He stifles laughter and tells me â€Å"It was just clothes that had fallen, you didn’t almost die†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Suddenly, I analyse the whole thing in my head and I find it kinda funny. I start laughing too. So we laugh~ â€Å"But I could have been surrounded by thugs. And you were not here†¦I tell him with a pout. He looks me in the eye, the kind that makes me blush, and he moves his face so close to mine till I can smell the distant whiff of alcohol in his breath hit me in the face. â€Å"Even if I was here, what could I have done†¦.† He asks, a playful smile on his face. And he moves his face even closer, till I feel the graze of his dry lips on mine†¦.

Mechanism of Vitamin D Action

Introduction Once absorbed, active elements of vitamin D, such as calcitriol, attach themselves to intracellular receptors and then act as transcription factors so as to modulate gene expression (Holick, 2010). The vitamin D receptors are similar to thyroid hormones and steroid hormones receptors and contain DNA- binding and hormone-binding domains. According to Holick (2010), these receptors bind with the retinoid-X receptors, another intracellular receptor, forming a complex bond. This heterodimer is what binds to cellular DNA and activates a biological reaction. The biological reaction can either be the stimulation of proteins that perpetuate intestinal absorption of calcium or providing the appropriate balance of elements crucial for bone function and growth (Holick, 2010). Vitamin D and Bone Health. Numerous studies have demonstrated that vitamin D has important ramifications on bone health, not only in life, but even in the course of fetal development. For instance, DeLuca & Schnoes (1976) cite Dr. Cooper’s research that studied the key factors associated with normal patterns of skeletal growth and established that maternal vitamin D deficiency, coupled with other dynamics, inhibited bone mineral absorption during intrauterine life, and was linked to stunted childhood growth and weak bones in adulthood (DeLuca & Schnoes, 1976). Lack of vitamin D has insidious consequences on the skeleton since it inhibits the accumulation of optimal levels of calcium that is genetically prearranged for the skeleton (Holick, 2010). Watson (2013) also retaliates that once peak bone mass is reached, adults lacking vitamin D in their system will annually loose approximately 0.5% of their skeletal mass if they lack sufficient vitamin D and calcium in their systems (p.18). In addition, vitamin D deficiency can also lead to osteomalacia (DeLuca & Schnoes, 1976); a mineralization defect of the collagen matrix. This condition is often accompanied by throbbing bone pain and aching (DeLuc a & Schnoes, 1976). Holick (2010) points out another research at the University of Pittsburgh that also established a correlation between vitamin D deficiency and increased susceptibility to bone fractures. The study measured the vitamin D levels of 400 participants with hip fractures and compared the results with the vitamin D levels of 400 other healthy women. The outcome demonstrated that individuals with the lowest levels of Vitamin D were 71 percent susceptible to bone fractures compared to those with the highest levels of vitamin D. Consequently, the role played by vitamin D in sustaining bone health can never be overemphasized. Not only does it aid in mineral absorption and bone development in intrauterine growth and childhood, but is also responsible for strong bones in adults as well. References DeLuca, H, F., and Schnoes K.K., (1976). Metabolism and Mechanism of Action of Vitamin D. Annual Review of Biochemistry. Vol. 45: 631- 637 Holick, M.F., (2010). Vitamin D: Physiology, Molecular Biology, and Clinical Applications. New York: Springer Science & Business Media Watson, R.S., (2013). Handbook of Vitamin D in Human Health: Prevention, Treatment and Toxicity, Chicago: Wageningen Academic Pub.

How Television Has Impacted Technology Essay

Television was introduced in 1949 but very few people had it because it was extremely expensive. The only channels people could watch were NBC and CBS. Television became increasingly popular because it was entertainment without going and sitting in the movie theaters. As TV became more popular, it became more affordable. People would hear about television through word of mouth, news, radio and newspaper. Everybody liked the idea of being entertained and staying at home. By the 1960s most families has TV sets in their living rooms, depending on if they liked being entertained at home. Television in the United States has grown year after year and has made a big impact on American culture in many ways. TV has taken a big part in violence in society, the news, how people are stereotyped, childhood obesity, family values, social interaction, and so much more. In my opinion one of the biggest impacts that television has had on American culture is childhood obesity. Obesity is considered a form of malnutrition in which food energy is stored as fat due to being unused. Child obesity is bred within the home and the television is a major contributor to it. The energy we consume from food needs to be used up by the body on a daily basis through physical exertion. An overweight child devoting a major portion of time to watching television is at risk to becoming obese. Television is certainly a contributor to that obesity. Kids these days are getting bigger and bigger, while television shows are growing and growing. To me, that is a big issue and television affects it a lot. Back in the day children enjoyed going outside to play, getting involved in sports or just anything outdoors. I feel like as of today there are now only about a quarter of the kids that enjoy doing outdoors stuff like that. The other 75% of kids choose to stay inside because most likely there favorite TV show is on or there is a movie that they just have to watch. Those kids are losing their time to play outside and mainly burn and lose calories because they are just sitting there watching TV for hours and hours. Obesity is known to be one of the major health concerns among both children and adults in the United States today. It is suggested by certain groups that children should not watch more than two hours of television a day. This in my opinion is already too much because that is where childhood obesity all gets started. The average child n the United States regularly watches between 2-3 hours of television a day and many children now days have their own television set in their bedroom. Not only are children inactive while they are watching television, they often snack on unhealthy food choices. And like I said, establishing unhealthy food habits as a child can often continue into adulthood. Investi gators have hypothesized that television viewing cause’s obesity by one or more of three mechanisms: (1) displacement of physical activity, (2) increased calorie consumption while watching or caused by the effects of advertising, and (3) reduced resting metabolism. The relationship between television viewing and obesity has been examined in a relatively large number of cross-sectional epidemiologic studies but few longitudinal studies. Many of these studies have found relatively weak, positive associations, but others have found no associations or mixed results; however, the weak and variable associations found in these studies may be the result of limitations in measurement. Even studies for reducing the amount of television intake have been completed. They do not test â€Å"reducing television time† directly, but the results that they get may help to reduce the amount of risk for obesity or help promote weight loss in obese children. â€Å"An experimental study was designed specifically to test directly the causal relationship between television viewing behaviors and body fatness. The results of this randomized, controlled trial provide evidence that television viewing is a cause of increased body fatness and that reducing television viewing is a promising strategy for preventing childhood obesity. † I really think parents need to take a stand to their children by limiting the amount of time they spend in front of the television, before it gets too late and they have an obese child. Removing televisions from children’s bedrooms and putting time limits on the TV may be a good way for parents to reduce the risk of obesity in children. Parents must serve as role models because their television viewing habits influence their children’s. Parents should also limit the frequency of television viewing. Overweight and obese children need to be encouraged to do more physical activity such as walking, playing and limiting their television time. Children may also need structured physical activity times to divert them away from television. â€Å"Although the increase in childhood obesity is not caused solely by television watching, Dr. Reginald Washington points out in the editorial that accompanies the articles, â€Å"Society, as a whole, must realize that to effectively control and prevent this obesity epidemic, all risk factors must simultaneously be reduced. † A study by the University of Liverpool psychologists has shown that it is to be true that obese and overweight children increase their food intake by more than 100% after watching food advertisements on television. Children all over the world are exposed to a huge number of TV advertisements, primarily for fast foods and sweets. Some say that it is not the amount of TV; it is the number of junk food commercials that advertise unhealthy foods and constantly play over and over. It is miserable that people blame television as a result to childhood obesity but the United States is starting to get very lazy when it comes to situations like this, therefore I truly believe TV is one of the dominate reasons of why children are becoming obese. I feel like this impact has been mainly negative on American culture. Television advertisers get talked down to by research groups, wanting them to take away all the unhealthy food commercials. Childhood obesity coming from television watchers makes American culture look very bad. When you find out that all it takes is television sets in a kids bedroom and high-quality shows that make children sit, stare and snack to become obese. It really puts a depressing look on America. In my opinion it is a very negative result because it used to not be this way at all. The parents and children put themselves in the situation to becoming obese and television just is an excuse for whenever they actually are obese. I know I will never let my children or close friends get this way due to excess amount of television watching. I have time to watch all my shows I like during the day and still get a good exercise in. I believe that all people can watch their weight and not become obese if they really try. So I really hope the culture changes and fix its look on television with obesity. I do believe that the internet will be used more wisely than television as a medium for delivering content. Television is an older and dull way of showing and sharing shows, movies and advertisements, while now days the nternet can do the same plus a whole lot more. Internet is a lot easier to get to because so many people have smart phones or laptops to be able to quickly access it. I feel like even now I start to see more and more people of all ages on their laptop/computer/smart phone rather than sitting down and watching television shows. Internet is a new (compared to TV) and entertaining way to access World Wide Web. News and broadcast stations are all starting to put their information and ideas on the internet even before they send them to television. While putting the internet into question about my topic, as much as I hate seeing younger kids run around with their own smart phone and/or laptop, it would really help society. Internet will help a lot more in this situation because children that do have smart phones will be able to play outside and exercise with their phone in hand. If the kids do go outside while on their phone it will stop them from sitting in front of a television set, sitting, staring and snacking. Therefore, it will lower the childhood obesity rate in the United States. Childhood obesity is a very heartbreaking yet occurring thing that television influenced and started in the U. S. It has been a very big impact on television and American Culture. After all, we are all hoping and praying that parents help their children get back to how it was back in the day. Have the children exercising, playing outside, and getting involved in sports that way they only spend approximately one hour watching television. We have to lower the childhood obesity rate and will continue to try and stop every way that is involved in it.

Od vs Hr

We are witnessing and participating in an unprecedented dissolution of the boundaries of the field of organization development. In organizations around the world, the HRS function Is monopolizing the ODD function at an unprecedented pace, which is limiting our reach, blunting our effectiveness, and compromising our role. † ODD and HRS Do We Want the Lady or the Tiger? By Matt Mailman Ding. Ding. Ding. K, time's up. Time to decide. Will it be door number one, or door number two? The lady or the tiger? In Frank Stockpot's allegory (1882), a prisoner is ordered to choose between two closed doors.Behind one is a woman whom he must marry sight unseen and live with for the rest of his life; behind the other is the tiger which would surely eat him alive. Without knowing exactly what is behind which door, how Is one to choose? And, which does one really prefer? Like the mythical prisoner, the field of ODD has been standing In front of two doors for too long, putting off the choice betw een them. One door would leave the ODD function embedded within HRS; the other would get ODD out to stand independently on its own two feet in the organization.The field of ODD has been putting off this decision for too long? nice its inception, in fact?and it is time for us to make the decision. Well into our mid-ass as a field, we can't really blame all of this mess on our forebears, because frankly we're dealing with these choices Just as badly as they did when the field was first founded. We're still standing looking at the same two doors between which our ODD forebears could not decide. Long History, Deep Roots This question about whether ODD should be part of HRS or should stand on its own goes back to the founding of our field.What became organization development had its roots in the training and placement function, where the T group was the primary Intervention. At a panel of the founders of ODD at the 2009 Academy of Management conference in Chicago, almost every one of the m, to a man, said that they were trained as writers or sociologists or engineers, but attended an ANT Institute T group where their lives changed. (Several also lamented that they were all white men in the field at that time, and on that panel at MOM. Following their ANT experiences, they tried to bring these insights they had obtained Into their organizations via the training function. By the ate sass, Just a few years after the field was founded by about a dozen Internal training and development people at Ant's summer home in Bethel, Maine, the theory was, â€Å"let's transform the way managers think about themselves and the ways they relate to people and solve problems, and once we've done that, we can send them back home to transform their own organizations† (Operas & Bradford, 2004).Evidently, there were some who said that the ODD function should stand on its own and be independent to other intelligence (Burke, 2 ). Others, however, were concerned t the field of ODD was too new and unknown and should reside in the personnel or raining function, as advocated by Shell Davis of TRW Systems, Sys Levy from Pillsbury, Herb Sheppard formerly of Sees, Dick Backyard, and others. Their belief was that â€Å"ODD at the time was too new, too ephemeral, and too suspect to survive on its own in the organization †¦Early on, then, two models or scenarios ODD and HRS: Do We Want the Lady or the Tiger? 17 about the place of ODD within the organization were debated regarding the wisdom of such a placement† (Burke, 2004). Theory Versus Fact The vast majority of the central thinkers, writers, and scholars in our field today (Cummings & Worldly, 2005; Marshal, 2009; Ferrymen & Worldly, 2009; Retell, et al. , 2009) write as if ODD is a separate and distinct field of practice, but the facts on the ground tell a different story.We are witnessing and participating in an unprecedented dissolution of the world, the HRS function is monopolizing the ODD function at an unprecedented pace, which is limiting our reach, blunting our effectiveness, and compromising our role. As a field, we are behaving as if there is nothing we can do about it; it is as if we are watching ourselves in an automobile crash in slow motion, worried and concerned at hat we see, and yet unable to find the brakes or grab the steering wheel to avert the collision and all of the collateral damage.Maybe the founders of the field were right that ODD was too new and too fragile to stand on its own. But they didn't count on what's happening now in the field of HRS. The Ascendancy of HRS Over the past 15 years, we have seen better and better leadership of the HRS function, with several universities now offering Masters' degrees in HARM and HARD and several MBA degrees with an HRS concentration. The result has been a generation of stronger, more tragic HRS managers who have achieved a seat at the table and are trusted advisors at the top of organizations.Many managers at the top of the HRS function are getting better by the year about understanding the dynamics of the organizations in which they serve. Increasingly, they can speak the language of the board room, and are not afraid to undertake even major organization change projects. This new generation of HRS leaders clearly understands that people and money are the powers that run organizations; and when the system can provide enough of the latter, their Job is to get Just enough f it into the hands of the former to get the Job done. And then return the rest to stakeholders. And to keep the organization out of court.In these regards, they are notably different from the generation of HRS managers and VSP that preceded them, when there was no professional training for HRS managers and when these posts often went to the UP who was due to retire next. The evolution of the training function also has had an impact. Ever increasing pressures to reduce costs nave torched the training diminution to get smart about impact evaluation. Kirkpatrick (1998) four levels have forced the training function to kook beyond end-of-session â€Å"smile sheets† to defend their budgets and make the case that training is a valuable investment.The result has been that training functions are now requiring training managers who have the skills to collect data, analyze it, and think systemically about what to do with it. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? If you needed The days of HRS staff being hired principally because they were people persons with DOD listening skills are gone. The trend toward activity based costing (BBC) is now showing the true cost of overhead functions such as HRS, and HRS is responding by asking itself more relevant to the business of the organization.Many HRS staff are now called business partners, often reflecting an aspiration goal, but quite distant from the actual reality of their skills on the ground. With this smarter, more strategic generation of HRS managers comes the instinct and desire to have at hand one of the most powerful levers for organizational change and renewal, the ODD function. Thus the trend of ODD roles and functions being acquired by HRS. And, to be clear, in merger and acquisition terms, these are not mergers of equals; they are straight up acquisitions of the ODD function by HRS.Another factor has been the pressure on HRS functions to be relevant to the business of the organization. The days of HRS staff being hired principally because they were people persons with good listening skills are gone. The trend toward activity based costing (BBC) is now showing the true cost of overhead functions such as HRS, and HRS is responding by making itself more relevant to the business of the organization. Many HRS staff are now called business partners, often reflecting an aspiration goal, but quite distant from the actual reality of their skills on the ground. Money to do that, wouldn't you be looking for a DOD ODD person?Often desperate to meet the ir utilization goals, the training function is very happy to let managers continue to believe that training is the answer to every problem, a kind of panacea for whatever ails. Leaders and employees alike seem to rely on training as the answer, believing perhaps that with the right education they can deliver what the business needs. That is certainly an easier solution to accept than facing ODD issues related to how people, teams, and departments relate and connect with one another, how business processes work, and how all connect with ND work toward the strategic direction of the organization.So, it is no wonder that smart HRS leaders are looking to candidates trained and educated in ODD to take on these business partner and training leadership roles, resulting in even more blurring of the lines between ODD and HRS. 18 ODD PRACTITIONER Volvo. 42 NO. 4 2010 Differences Are Real, and Important By now, this author's biases are probably clear: there are important differences between th e ODD and HRS functions; and as these roles collapse and the differences disappear, the field of ODD is losing its unique position in the organization and its effectiveness overall.We're behaving as a field as if we uncoil be living in a both/and world around this, when the truth is exactly the opposite. Many in ODD struggle to find and hold boundaries that separate people and things. We spend our entire time helping our clients make better connections between each other at all levels?individuals and pairs, cross unit collaboration, organizations working toward better partnerships, etc. But when it comes to ODD and our HRS cousins, we should be sharpening and better defining our boundaries, not blurring them, because the differences in our functions are real and important.The HRS function has a legally mandated, regulatory role: to provide people to fill Jobs, to reduce costs (for payroll, health care insurance, benefits, etc. ), and to keep the organization out of the courts and th e press by ensuring compliance and avoiding claims of discrimination or harassment. People view HRS as the people you go to with a problem that you want to make official. People feel that going to HRS puts things in the record. They see HRS as the enforcers or policemen.The ODD function has a developmental mandate; in fact, our Job is to increase the effectiveness of the organization and to maximize the potential of the human beings in the work force. We have theories, concepts, beliefs, and values through which we help our clients assure that there is alignment among strategy, structure, business process, and culture, while at the same time embedding human values such as honesty, respect, diversity, and voice.One model (Marshal, 2006) outlines three domains of knowledge for ODD practitioners: Ð’Â » understanding social systems, drawing on theories and ideas from the social sciences, including psychology, social psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, and others, consistent with ODD aloes; understanding the wows and whys of change, including the bodies of knowledge that help explain how all levels of the system?individual, group, organizational, community, and even societies change; and understanding the role of the third party change agent, especially aiding the person in charge as well as the system itself to bring about the desired changes, requiring an understanding of the issues, politics, psychological processes related to being a third party in a change process. That doesn't sound much like the recruit, retain, train, and develop mandate of the HRS function, does it? It is hard to imagine even the highest functioning HRS departments being knowledgeable and skilled in all these areas. There are many in HRS who look at the list of ODD functions and say, â€Å"Oh, we can do that! † And, on occasion, they may be right.But the philosophies of the two disciplines are starkly different, as are the theory bases, the world views, the c ore skills sets, and their roles within the organization. There is a built-in conflict between the role of ODD consultant, coach or adviser with a developmental mandate working toward organizational effectiveness, versus the role to the R practitioner whose core mandate is regulatory and endorsement. Can a good HRS person advise on selected developmental matters, such as training strategies and needs assessments? Yes, as can a good ODD person. But the conflict of interest for the HRS staff shows up when the Action Research process of retreat planning and design requires them to interview staff about a manager's effectiveness.What staff member in her right mind would say something critical of their manager to someone from HRS, who is likely also to be involved in decisions about that manager's promotion, pay, and even succession planning? Or their own? HRS has its hands on too many of the organizational levers and has too many mandates centering around enforcement and control to ever be effective at drawing out of managers the truth about their insecurities, anxieties, and the shadow sides, that is so necessary to doing good work and being effective in doing ODD. Troubling Examples These concerns aren't Just theoretical, either. Quick conversations with a handful of colleagues, both ODD and HRS, turn up some troubling examples.In a large multinational organization, The Different Functions Organization Development Ђ Improve the effectiveness of the organization Maximize the potential of human beings and their contributions to the organization Align strategy, structure, business processes, and behavior into an effective corporate culture Model and foster humanistic values into the workplace Human Resources Manage employee attraction, retention, development, and performance management Develop and manage programs for employee relations, staff wellbeing, workforce planning, and workload management Ensure equity and diversity Reduce labor costs Avoid litigation E nforce corporate policies 9 the ODD staff and external consultants were forced to follow the rules that govern the rest of the HRS function around meeting with VSP and senior managers. The HRS UP insisted that he attend every meeting that the HRS?and ODD! ?staff had with other VSP in the organization. Not Just marketing or contracting meetings, but actual project meetings as well. He was unwilling to make an exception for the ODD staff lest the HRS staff get upset.Within weeks, his it was in Corporate Strategy along with the strategy and budget functions, where it had free reign of the organization and was in constant contact with the top dervish on strategy, structure, and corporate culture. It was later merged into the HRS function. The results: the best organization design people in town left (with all of their embedded knowledge) rather than be reassigned to deliver management training programs. Then a succession to HRS managers grade- practitioner is, then anybody can hang out a shingle claiming he or she is an ODD consultant. In fact, some years ago, there was an informal study of the members of the ODD Network that found that almost one third of them had taken on the label or the role of ODD consultant, with no previous education or training in the field.Not All Bad News To be clear, the field has shifted largely positively, over the past few decades, responding to some of the â€Å"red flags† that Larry Greener (1972) identified for ODD, including: Ð’Â » Putting individual behavior ahead of strategy, structure, process, and controls; Ð’Â » Overemphasized the informal at the expense of the formal organization, driving more for openness and trust to change the culture, often at the expense of efficiency, hierarchy, and accountability; Ð’Â » Driving open and trusting relationships as a normative model for change, without questioning the context or applicability in a even situation, and assuming that team building was always the preferre d intervention; Ð’Â » Putting process before task, enamored with the human dynamics of working together over getting the work done; and Ð’Â » Treating the manager as Just another stakeholder, relatively uninvolved in the planning and conduct of consultant programs rather than the key stakeholder. Historically, the field has addressed many, if not all, of these red flags among strong and well-grounded practitioners. However, many of them are still quite evident in HRS people who are trying to do ODD today.The Right Answer Reflecting on the various options for organizing and structuring the ODD function and constructing its relationship with HRS, the optimum solution is to establish In a large financial institution, the ODD function thrived when it was part of the IT function where it designed and facilitated large business process simplification projects. It had its best years when it was in Corporate Strategy along with the strategy and budget functions, where it had free re ign of the organization and was in constant contact with the top leadership on strategy, structure, and corporate culture. It was later merged into the HRS function. The results: the best organization design people in town left (with all of their embedded knowledge) rather than be reassigned to deliver management training programs. Schedule became a huge constraint on the work of the ODD function because consultants (internal and external) could not get into his calendar to meet with their clients. In a science-based organization the ODD function was fully financially self-sufficient, recovering the costs and a bit of an â€Å"upgrade† from its internal clients. Other HRS managers got resentful of this chargeable mechanism. They forced the manager of the ODD program to stop cupping her costs, which effectively killed the ODD function because it had no free- standing budget of its own. In a university, a very strong and capable ODD function has been merged and renamed Learning and ODD, resulting in the organization's best ODD talent being diverted into managing the training program for the university.In a large financial institution, the ODD function thrived when it was part of the IT function where it designed and facilitated large business process simplification projects. It had its best years when ally reduced the ODD function to delivering two day team alluding retreats, and a cadre of dozens of internal and external consultants has been whittled down to less than 10. In one knowledge -based organization we know, the ODD person is required to have the HRS person present during all contracting and data collection meetings. Clients are now creatively working around the requirement by calling the ODD staff directly on their cell phones after hours to discuss matters that they can't or won't say in front of the HRS people, who are not trusted in that system.No Boundaries, No Standards What Bradford and Burke (2004) said about the jack of standards in the field of ODD applies equally well to the lack of boundaries with the HRS function. â€Å"When there is lack of clarity as to the boundaries of the field and corresponding confusion about what the appropriate role of an ODD 20 the ODD function independently. Ideally, it would have a blended mandate and funding, charging back for local unit-specific work, and centrally funded for organization-wide efforts. There are instances when ODD should be working in partnership with the HRS function, specialists on one discipline speaking with and working closely with specialists of the other discipline.There are instances when the HRS function would be the ODD function's client; and there are instances when the ODD and HRS functions ought not to be working together at all, such as when there are conflicts of interest or large scale organization strategy or design projects not ready for implementation. There are disadvantages to being freestanding and independent within the organization. The O DD function may become vulnerable to exposure, scrutiny, and politics. Some ODD people can't play in the C-suite (Burke, 2004). The function would have to earn its stripes and compete for money and mandate with there functions in strategic planning, financial management, budget, and yes, even HRS.But the upsides of organizational independence are quite significant, and are evident now where strong ODD departments are standing on their own. The ODD function becomes central to the business of the organization, influencing strategy, mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, restructuring, etc. It works upstream, providing early input on the development of plans and processes, able to bring a systemic perspective and ODD values to actions that previously had been made primarily on financial grounds alone. It is present and able to influence the setting of the agenda, not Just the implementation of it. But How to Get There? It is no longer enough Just to be good at process.To be able to st and independently in organizations, free of the cover and support of the HRS function, ODD practitioners need to: Ð’Â » Know the major environmental, regulatory, and financial drivers of the organization; Know, be known by, and trusted by the top leadership to the organization; Know what's involved in evaluating, deciding, and implementing mergers and acquisitions, especially around blending corporate cultures and business processes; Be effective n working across cultures, in global environments, and especially today, virtually; and Be attuned to the organizational politics within the organization and within its governance structures. (Greener ; Cummings, 2004) Integrating sustainability and globalization into the world of ODD brings another set of challenges.To play effectively as a free standing function, free of support from HRS, ODD practitioners need: Ð’Â » New and better ideas for progress, guided by diversity, development, and sustainability; Ð’Â » To understand a nd be effective at intervening in economic systems, balancing productivity with innovation, sustainability, and perversity; socially constructed and negotiated (Bushes ; Marshal, 2008). As the boundaries of the field have expanded over the past 15 years to include more systemic perspectives, there are new challenges for how to educate new ODD professionals (Minoan ; Farther, 2008). That's a tall order for a field that has prided itself historically on being apolitical, focusing on the individual, following the lead of the client, ambivalent about asserting ourselves in leadership roles within our client systems, and seeing ourselves as a bit subversive in being countercultures. There is some good news here, however.

Value of science

Richard Funnyman Is a world renowned physicists, he is known especially for his help In the development of the atomic bomb. Considering that he Is the creator of the worlds most dangerous weapon, The Value of Science can be interpreted on an entirely different level as Funnyman goes back and forth on the concepts of good vs.. Evil as a way to reflect his moral conscience. Richard Funnyman' morality can be seen through his passages about good and evil in the world of science and the world outside of science.During Funnyman' opening point he states that when good things re created because of science It Is because â€Å"moral choice† (Funnyman 64) led them to that discovery. In other words, when someone makes something beneficial in science it is simply because while they were making it they were considering what is right and wrong. He continues by saying that each scientist is given the power â€Å"to do either good or bad† (Funnyman 64). However, there are no instruction s on how to decipher which one you are doing.Therefore, you could create something disastrous due to the lack of direction. In addition, he references a Buddhist proverb, â€Å"To every man Is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell† (Funnyman 64). He is relating this quote to the good and bad choices that can be made in science. For example, in the proverb the â€Å"kef' would be the science, â€Å"heaven† would be the good that can come from science, and â€Å"hell† would be the bad that can come from science.However, whether it be the power to do something good or bad or the key to heaven or hell there are never and instructions on which choices will lead you here. If you don't have Instructions, â€Å"the key may be a dangerous object to use† (Funnyman 64). Based on the diction he uses In this section It suggests that he Is feelings guilty for the effects of the atomic bomb since he is using words such as â€Å"bad †, â€Å"evil†, and â€Å"dangerous†. It suggests that perhaps Funnyman feels as if he opened the gate to hell rather than the gate to heaven through his invention.His guilt is further shown with his comparison of science to the world outside of science. Richard Funnyman uses things outside of science to compare and Justify his morals about what he has done In science. For example, he states that education, communication, and applied science can be a â€Å"strong force, but for either good or evil† (Funnyman 69). It can be interpreted that he is referencing the atomic bomb by the repetition of the words â€Å"strong force† because the atomic bomb is the most feared bomb in the world due to how much power it is has.Also, when he says that these strong forces can be used for â€Å"good or evil† (Funnyman 69) it could mean that the mob could be used for good, In which cases It wouldn't harm any civilians, or It can be used for evil, like how It was used In World War II where the bomb was used and killed 80,000 people instantly. He is using these examples outside of science as a way to show that, yes, science can create horror, but there are so many other things in the world that can create the same outcome. Following this further, he states that â€Å"nearly everybody dislikes war and continues by saying that â€Å"our dream today is peace† (Funnyman 69).However, he further explains this point by giving an example of how eventually peace turns Into a bad thing also. This rationale used by Funnyman war. If this is the case, his example of peace being a bad thing would reference the fact that, the atomic bomb ended the war, but there was so much horror in the way it ended that it is impossible to actually have peace. The passage â€Å"Education, for Good and Evil† as a whole suggests that he is trying to take attention off of science alone being bad, by bring other things into the equation.This section of his writing shows his morality through his diction and repetition, if there were no remorse for his decisions the whole piece would take a completely different purpose. Origin, an ancient theologian, once said, â€Å"the power of choosing good and evil is within the reach of all. † Richard Funnyman shows that this is entirely possible to do, given that the person making the decision is in touch with their morals. Good things can be created from knowledge, but the biggest part of creating something great is the use of moral choices.