Studying the Field of Organisational Behaviour Essay

Studying the Field of Organisational Behaviour - Essay Example There is no real, ideal resolution for the organizational evils. The only thing that one can do is to increase one understands of abilities and skills, so that individual relations at work can be improved. â€Å"Organizational Behavior (OB) is the study and application of knowledge about how people, individuals, and groups act in organizations. It does this by taking a system approach. That is, it interprets people-organization relationships in terms of the whole person, whole group, whole organization, and whole social system† (Leadership and Organizational Behavior 2011). Organizational Behavior is the field of study that searches the after effect that persons, teams, and formation have on behavior within the company (organization). Organizational behavior deals with the study, and implication of awareness about how individuals act and react within organizations. Organizational behavior is a tool for the employee to work for the benefit of the organization. It is applicable largely to the manners of individuals working in all kinds of organizations including government, business, educational institutions, services, and companies. Organizational behavior is applied to cover three determinants of activities in organizations: individuals, teams and structure. The applied field of OB is concerned with the information gained about persons, and the impacts of structure on behavior so that to make organizations work more successfully. It is better to understand the organization first to study organizational behavior more clearly. Organization is a focused system with some subsystems where persons and actions are organized to attain some particular, predetermined goals and objectives through division of labor, effective utilization of resources, and the coordination of activities. Division of labor means how the works are divided among the staff that is, keeping the right person for the right job. Coordination of work becomes more important, as it can lead to accomplishing the goals of the organization, by integrating the activities of each and every employee in the organization. The word ‘organizing’ is used to denote the aspect of administrative activities needed for an entrepreneur in preparing and setting up the diverse tasks to fulfill or complete the job. The managers in an organization may have to face many challenges and opportunities to use organizational behavior theories to improve the general effectiveness of persons, teams and organization. Based on behavioral science and some additional interdisciplinary matters, the managers can address the following issues with in an organization. Improving People Skills Improving Quality and Productivity Managing Workforce Diversity Empowering People Stimulating Innovation and Change Improving Ethical Behavior It is clear that Studying the field of Organizational Behavior can assist in deepening our understanding of why people in an organizational setting behave in the ways that they do. â€Å"The ability to explain people’s behavior is critical to making recommendations for improvement if we make poor explanations, and poor recommendations. In an organizational setting, this can lead to a continuation of poor performance. In contrast, if we make strong and accurate observations, we can make strong recommendations that have a demonstrable impact on people and the business† (Why People Do What They Do n.d.). It can be said that

TORT LAW- PROBLEM QUESTION Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

TORT LAW- PROBLEM QUESTION - Essay Example This was the original negligent act, so the analysis must stem from this. Below is the analysis of the situation, with a conclusion that outlines the probable outcome. Since this action is one that is based upon negligence, the scenario will be analyzed using the elements of negligence – duty, breach, causation and damages. Duty The first element that must be examined in this action, and any other negligence action, is duty. As far as duty goes, there does not need to be privity between the parties – anybody who might be harmed because of the actions of the person causing the negligence is owed a duty, according to Donoghue v. Stevenson.1 This is particularly true when the harm is foreseeable.2 Therefore, if a person is reasonable, and is driving reasonably, then the harm cannot be said to be foreseeable. This would negate a person's duty. Whereas, previously, in English law, there must be some kind of privity between the tortfeasor and the victim, in that the victim an d the tortfeasor must have had some kind of prior relationship, the landmark case of Donoghue v. Stevenson3 altered this. In Donoghue v. Stevenson, the plaintiff, Donoghue, became ill after drinking ginger beer which had a slug in it. The justice in Donoghue proclaimed that individuals owed a duty to anybody who might be affected by their actions. Another case, Caparo v. Dickman4 states that the duty of care can be explained threefold - that the harm was reasonably foreseeable, that there was a relationship of proximity between the tortfeasor and the victim, and that it would be fair, reasonable and just to impose liability. So, as in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd5, the defendants were not held negligent for a fire which broke out on the water, even though they knew that there was oil slipping below the dock onto the water and the defendants could not reasonably foresee that water would ignite. Moreover, proximity is also an issue, becaus e the harm caused must be proximate to the tortfeasor - Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.,6 is a case where there was not proximate cause between negligence on one end and an unforseeable victim on the other. In that case, the defendant was helping a woman onto a train and this woman had fireworks which exploded. This caused scales to fall on a distant bystander, and the court decided that the distant bystander’s injuries were not proximately caused by the defendant’s actions. On this ground, the client would prevail, because he acted reasonably in his driving, therefore, there was not a duty to Sheila, as the injury was not foreseeable. On the other hand, since he left 10 minutes late,he might have had a duty if there was an issue to where her brain injuries would have occurred with a ten minute delay. Breach Breach is the next element that needs to be looked at. Again, foreseeability is the key to a breach of a duty. The injury that occurs must be foreseeable.7 If the injury that occurred was not foreseeable, then there would not be a breach of duty.8 Again, this would rest upon whether or not the person was acting