Microbiology Essay Example for Free

Microbiology Essay Unknown reports in microbiology are written in scientific format. Scientific writing is written differently from other types of writing. The results of the exercise or experiment are what are being showcased, not the writing. The purpose of scientific writing is not to entertain, but to inform. The writing should be simple and easy to understand. There is a specific style that must be followed when writing scientific reports. Scientific writing is typically written in the passive voice. The pronouns I, We and They are not typically used. . For example, instead of writing I used a TSA agar plate to isolate my unknown, it is customary to write, A trypticase soy agar (TSA) plate was used to isolate the unknown. It is also customary to write in the past tense for most of the report. This includes the introduction, the summary, the description of the materials and methods and the results. The present tense is reserved for the conclusions about the results. See the examples given below. Some other general rules that should be followed are: Microbial nomenclature: The name of the bacterium should written and spelled correctly. The name should be italicized or underlined. Italicized is preferred. For example, Staphylococcus aureus. The genus is capitalized but the species is not. After the full genus name is given in the paper, it can be written as S. aureus, but still italicized. This is as long as there in no other genera in the paper that starts with the same letter. MATERIALS AND METHODS This is where the details of the study are listed. Where did the specimen come from, and what methods were used to identify it? Be specific, but do not re write the lab manual. One way is to mention the names of the materials used and reference the lab manual for the procedure or method and then continue to elaborate when necessary. See example 1. Example 1: An unknown labeled as letter G was given out by the lab instructor. The methods that have been learned thus far for identifying bacteria have been applied to this unknown. Procedures were followed as stated in the course laboratory manual by De Mers (1), unless otherwise noted. The first procedure that needed to be done was to streak the unknown out on a Trypticase Soy Agar plate, using the T streak method described in the lab manual.. This needed to be done in order to test the purity of the unknown. After the plates were incubated and grown, the morphology was observed and recorded and a Gram stain was performed. Quality control bacteria were Gram stained along with the unknown to make sure that the Gram stain reaction was done correctly . After determining the Gram reaction, specific biochemical tests were performed. The biochemical tests were chosen from the unknown identification tables that were in the lab manual. Since unknown G was determined to be a Gram negative rod, an oxidase test was performed and the organism was inoculated into a BCP lactose tube. Note all of these tests were performed by the methods listed in the lab manual by De Mers (1). Table 1 lists the test, purpose, reagents and results. All of the following tests were performed on thi s unknown: 1. Oxidase test 2. BCP Lactose 3. Indole 4. H2S 5. Citrate 6. Motility 7. Methyl Red 8. Urea Another way is to write out the methods in detail in either a paragraph form or listed. This way is not necessary for this type of paper, since this is lab report for the identification of an unknown bacterium and the methods are explained in detail in the lab manual. If there is a procedure that the instructor added or made changes to, or the student used another procedure not in the course lab manual, then it should be written out and referenced.

Influence of the Economy on UK Government

Influence of the Economy on UK Government The UK economy has undergone structural, financial, and political change over the last thirty years. Different ideologies and policies have served to shape the relationship between government and economy in varying directions. Some elements, such as state intervention, have remained as a point of debate. Other factors, like globalization, have just recently developed. The policy of UK governments as a whole has been shaped quite heavily by major economic events during this period, and the legacy left by the Conservative and Labor governments can still be seen today. The context of this relationship is concerned with the theory of political economy. This is the idea of rationality and growth of the ‘free market. First, it is key to outline the characteristics of the relationship the government and the economy share. Clearly, a government influences the way an economy works via it’s policies. The government uses two branches of policy, fiscal and monetary. Fiscal policy entails government spending whereas monetary policy involves manipulation interest rates. Both policy instruments are designed to achieve growth. The attempts of a government to influence economic activity in the national economy are defined as macro-economic measures. Even the government itself is run as a typical business in a free market economy. It has a limited budget, and it has to prioritize quality and cost. It sets itself certain monetary and economic targets which it aims to meet each financial year. The state also plays a crucial role in providing a welfare state, where transfer payments are an important part of a circular flow of an economy. Transfer payments are aid given to people who are unemployed, or for any other reason, are economically inactive. Aside from this, the government will play other roles of importance. The regulation of markets and the encouragement of competition and entrepreneurship are all different areas in which the government contributes to the economy. If you break the relationship down further to involve the firms, the government still maintains influential involvement. The tax system and enterprise schemes are just two of a long list of programs with which government and business stay inter-connected. The ass ociation between the government and its economy is a crucial and significant aspect of any dominant nation around the globe. One of the key changes in this relationship between governments and economies hasn’t risen from external events. One of the components of this relationship has undergone significant change since 1979. When looking at the time period just before this, there had been various approaches to political economy which had begun and then collapsed. The Keynesian orthodoxy collapsed in the face of a persistent and unpredicted rate of inflation. Each ideological change brought about it’s different effects on the relationship between government and economy. To generalize the change before and after 1979, it is appropriate to state that the size and style of government had changed, from big to small. Big government, where regulation of markets, state intervention and command economics were the central characteristics, had been abolished. In came small government, where practices such as deregulation, privatization and free market economics were encouraged and integrated. Under small government, the state would take a step back from economic affairs, and adapt, to a small extent; a ‘laissez-faire’ approach. This change in government would be preferred by business and other capitalists. Certainly, this change was a landmark event in the economic theory of the state, and would shape the economic policies of the following governments. The tenures of Thatcher and Blair may have been under different parties, but towed the line of small government, less government intervention. A new wave of neo-liberal or neo-classical practice had begun. The change in government style has been noted. Now, the effects of this change need to be assessed, and more importantly, the critical elements need to be analyzed. First, the notion of state intervention and market failure has to be critically put under the microscope. The argument over whether the state should intervene in the country’s economy has been a drawn out affair. Certainly, under the new Thatcher government in the early 80’s, state intervention in economic matters was the norm. Under Thatcher ‘there was a real attempt to deregulate markets and to transfer assets from public to the private sector’. This policy of privatization, ‘the sale of public sector firms to the private sector’, had become the hallmark of the 1980’s Con servative tenure. ‘Indeed, for many the overriding impression given by the Thatcher government was it’s interventionist †¦ stance in a wide variety of markets’. The idea behind this privatization program was that first, opening up large monopoly type companies allowed the implementation of private expertise and involvement, which wasn’t initially present. This would lead to a great level of efficiency and productivity. Second, privatization would show that ‘even natural monopolies were better handled by arms’ length regulation that committed the government to intervene perpetually’. Other Thatcher projects like the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and Public-Private partnerships invoked the idea of bringing a isolated private sector into the fray, and tapping it’s knowledge and expertise to bring a positive effect. The Public Finance Initiative used private finance to build projects and private management to run them, with the government paying a service charge for the use of the asset. Certainly, this program brought to the end the idea of heavy state control. The economic policies of Thatcher were a definite change from the period before. Labor would continue the main theme of free market policies. However, the period under Labor also the nationalization of some of Britain’s big companies. The Financial Crisis of 2007 saw Labor bring the Royal Bank of Scotland, Northern Bank and Lloyds TSB into government ownership. The government was forced to pump emergency funds into the banks to restore confidence in the banking system and to avoid a complete collapse. The need for government intervention wasn’t favored by either the banking sector or the general public, but this intervention was one of the risks which came with a free market economy. As free market economies involve little regulation, the banks in this case, went past many of their remit when it came to what practices they could and should carry out. In such an economy, it is often assumed that the market should be left to regulate for itself, but such an assumption failed completely here. Alongside the banking crisis, the government was forced to introduce other macro-economic measures, such as quantitative easing designed to increase money supply and consumer spending, and other more micro-economic based measures such as the car scrappage scheme, which concentrated on boosting car sales. Government intervention was quite successful during this period, with Britain return to relative growth by 2009 and the banking sector beginning to recover. The period highlights the issue of whether state intervention is ever invisible to the economy. The idea behind dropping a command economic model is that you want an economy to work in a way for which it aims to maximize profit and creates growth and enterprise. Taking out the notion of state intervention means that individual companies and markets will have to work more efficiently and more professionally then they would if state assistance was on hand to help on any time. Regulation and risk-taking would have to be at an acceptable level, as the responsibility and successfulness of a business will depend solely on it’s management. Thus, should the business fall into trouble, and the government doesn’t intervene, it will be the company’s bosses that will feel the wrath of it’s shareholders. However, w hen the situation at stakes involves a sector which the whole country depends on and uses a lot of the time, e.g. banks, it becomes increasingly difficult for the government not to take action. The banks were a big concern for the public and small businesses, as there would be a high chance of savings being lost and businesses losing investment. It was important for all people involved to see the banks recover and be halted from the verge of collapse. The period has shown two things. Firstly, the UK economy has definitely assembled a free market and neo-liberal economic agenda, with markets allowed to act as they wish within an appropriate limit. Secondly, the government has the tools and the power to intervene in markets which grossly abuse the power allocated and allowed to them. Another aspect of political economy which has developed over the last thirty years is globalization. The term globalization ‘more accurately describes a number of processes by which products, people, companies, money and information are able to move freely and quickly around the world, unimpeded by national borders or other territorial limitations’. The effect of globalization is developing as each day goes by. The global economy has undergone significant change over the last few years, with workers and businesses all around the world being influenced by events happening in other parts of the globe. Trade and labour are some of the key parts of how globalization has developed. Trade between countries has grown quite extensively, with the European Union a good example of how trade relations have lengthened. Also, companies are now begin ning to locate businesses abroad because of cheap labour and favorable tax incentives. All these events have led to a rapid rise in global economic theory and policy. Globalization has helped create TNC’s (transnational companies) whose brand name is known all around the world. The effect of globalization is that the communication and influence of national government in it’s can break down easily. For example, if a company in the UK feels it is being taxed unfairly, or feels that it’s UK labour force isn’t as efficient as it could be in other countries, it may now have the ability to leave without causing itself much damage financially. If the government knows that it’s hand can be forced easily by the developing global market, it will be forced to succumb to the any demand of it’s domestic businesses. Ironically, globalization can also be classed as an argument for state intervention. Globalization will lead to some businesses failing due to increased competition – more reason to support other firms which could be successful in the future. Also, globalization may not be such a bad thing economicall y. Yes, a country is at risk with its businesses willing to relocate to the country that suits them best, but global competition means more emphasis on firm’s to become competitive. This can lead to more jobs and more growth in the domestic economy. The advancement of globalization has led to a decrease in the influence of government and moved up a notch, the power of business in national economies. In conclusion, over the last thirty years, the relationship between government and economy has fluctuated many times. The policy and style of government, and other external crises’ and events have led to different styles in handling public sector economics. External events such as the financial crisis and globalization have brought up the debate of the free market and whether attempts to keep the government in the background will ever be successful. Monopolies were the created of privatization, but deregulation was a creator of nationalization. This has seen a fine line having to be struck between the government’s roles in the economy. Globalization has seen individual firms within an economy boost their status and influence, in turn, shutting out government power in their respective economies. Different parties have brought their respective philosophies into power in the UK. Enterprise, freedom of choice and increased competition in individual markets has been the driv ing force in most action taken by government during this period. In my opinion, it is fair to say, that the UK economy and the UK government have undergone structural, political and geographical change, which has led to Britain maintaining a stranglehold in the battle of the developed and developing economies.

The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe Essay examples -- essays research

The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe By C.S. Lewis   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  My favorite character in this book would have to be Peter. He was a little bit of a tough guy yet timid, but wasn’t afraid to fight for his siblings lives. Peter was the oldest amongst his brother and two sisters and was most likely the brains and brawn of the bunch. In this story, Peter has to fight off a wolf to test his courage or, in Aslan’s words, win his spurs. He returns victorious and is knighted by the lion called Aslan. His brother Edmund, a very mischievous boy and a bother to his sisters Lucy and Susan, looks up to Him though he never admits to it. Peter was definitely the highlight of this book.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Four children, two girls and two boys, are in for an adventure of a lifetime their names were, starting with the oldest, Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy. The story starts off with the children leaving London by train because of war. The place the children took refuge in was a mansion deep in the country where they would be out of harms way. In this mansion there were thousands of rooms, hideaways, secret passageways, many floors and much, much more. Of Course there was nothing more boring than to sit around all day when it did nothing but rain outside. So what do they do? They explore the house of course! And they did. In the process of doing so, they came to a room on the highest floor of the mansion, but all that was in there was a hand-carved wardrobe with not...

Evolution of Heroism: Comparing Qualities of Ancient Heroes Versus Mod

Heroes are prevalent in everyone’s life. Whether someone’s hero is a living person or a fabled character from a movie, everybody has come into contact with some sort of hero. In fact, the concept of heroes has existed for hundreds of years, dating all the way back to Ancient Greece. However, heroes have not always been people who dress up in costumes and fight crime, as our current society would lead us to believe. No, heroes started out differently and have evolved throughout the centuries. Heroes generally reflect the ideals of their society, and while they are not perfect, they demonstrate the qualities and traits valued by their society. Heroes have always possessed distinguishing qualities, but these traits and qualities have changed drastically over time. The Greek definition of a hero is far removed from the Romantic and modern definitions of heroes. Early heroes were characterized by extraordinary physical ability and incredible battle skills, whereas contempora ry heroes rely on intellectual ability and their rebellious nature. Specifically, the original Greek heroes had god-like physiques and were deadly and unstoppable warriors. One of the most prominent Greek heroes, Odysseus, demonstrates these qualities in Homer’s epic poem The Odyssey. Odysseus first displays his inhuman strength in the cave of Polyphemus, the Cyclops. His men prepare a large olive stake to thrust it into Polyphemus’ eye and Odysseus â€Å"drives his weight on [the olive stake] from above and bores it† (Homer, 223) in, an astounding feat of which only Odysseus is capable. Odysseus demonstrates his physical dominance again when he escapes the whirlpool Charybdis by â€Å"springing for the great fig tree† above and then escapes from Charybdis need I say/high... ...he example of each (smart for equality, fighting social boundaries for jane) but now that you say both do that (which is true for the most part) after â€Å"mentally brilliant† such as Equality and Jane, and fight their social boundaries as opposed to physical armies and foes. In Greek society, those who were fearless and muscular fighters were the ones that were honored and praised, comma needed but in modern society, people who are exceptionally bright and courageous can become honorable heroes. A perfect example of a modern hero is Barack Obama. Barack is extremely intelligent, as this is required of any president to run a country. He is the first African-American president, an act rebellious against the normal customs of American presidents. He cannot defeat an entire army of suitors by himself, but he has used his courage and intelligence to become a hero for many.

F. Scott Fitzgeralds The Great Gatsby :: essays research papers

The Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Great Gatsby is a symbolic novel of the disintegration of the American dream in an era of extraordinary prosperity and material excess. On the surface, we see that it is a story about the love between a man and a woman but the overall theme is the collapse of the American dream in society. We find that every character in their own way is searching for their American dream but as a result, their desire for wealth and pleasure, caused them to find themselves lost in the corruption of the aristocrat society.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Daisy is one of the characters that is trying to search for her American dream but the readers don’t really notice this because it seems that Daisy has everything already – wealth, a husband, love and family. It is everything she could possibly want but as we get to know Daisy, the reader sees that there is something else Daisy desires besides wealth and luxurious material. â€Å"I’m glad it’s a girl. And I hope she’ll be a fool – that’s the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.† - Pg 21. Daisy’s America dream is to be this â€Å"beautiful little fool† she envisions. Daisy is beautiful and it is told through the characters that she is charming and beautiful but they could see right through her. They knew what she wanted in life and the fact that she was void of any loyalty or care. Daisy sought after this image of being this â€Å"beautiful little fool† so that she could hide her selfish ways and put on this fake faà §ade so the other characters would see she is innocent.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Throughout the novel, Daisy acts snooty and stuck-up around the other characters as if she is better then them. She also acts very child-like when she cries over â€Å"beautiful shirts.† â€Å"They’re such beautiful shirts,† she sobbed, her voice muffled in the thick folds. â€Å"It makes me sad because I’ve never seen such – such beautiful shirts before.† – Pg 98. From this it shows that she only cares about luxurious material. Through her actions, we see that Daisy is not this girl that we should sympathize or look up to as â€Å"great† compared to Gatsby. â€Å"Even if we are cousins. You didn’t come to my wedding. I wasn’t back from the war. That’s true. She hesitated. Well, I’ve had a very bad time, Nick, and I’m pretty cynical about everything.

Death of a Parent Essay

I believe we are defined by events that happen throughout our lives both passivity and negatively. Most of the events that change people’s paths often happen suddenly in their life and sometimes have long term effects. Whether it is a personal, religious, life style, or even a career change the fact still remains the cause for change was caused by the event. The statements above are true for my life; my life was about to change forever. This is the day I found out my mother had only six months to live, I was only 19 years old. I was picking my mother up from a routine follow-up appointment she had at Keesler Air force Base Hospital in Biloxi Mississippi, on the afternoon of 3 March 1997. I was walking up the steps of the hospital when I saw her walking out her face was pale I asked her if she was ok, her response was no. At this point in time everything went silent she asked me to sit down on the steps but I couldn’t I just wanted to know what was wrong. My mother while holding my hands then told me the results of the test and that she had liver cancer and it was untreatable. I was frozen not knowing what to say I just grab her and held her close and begun to cry. She told me to stop crying because she was going to need me to be strong for her and my brothers, that she wanted her last six months to be happy memories not sad ones. Let’s step back for a moment so I can explain the relationship I had with my mother because it was not your normal one. My mother was so much more to me than just a mom, she was my best friend I told her everything and she told me everything. We spent many late nights talking about everything in life from how our day went to what life would hold for us in the future. My mother was one of those people who never wanted or asked for anything for herself but was one who gave everything and would do anything for her children. When I say her children I don’t just mean her biological ones, she took care and provide for so many more, whether it was local neighbor hood, friends, family, co-workers and sometime even complete strangers who just need help. I remember many nights sitting at the kitchen table with people eating dinner with us who I did not know and many of them I would never see again after that night. My mom would always say we don’t have much but what we do have is sometimes way more than what others have. My mother was the strongest person I ever known, who also had the biggest heart. Two years before we found out she only had six months to live my mother kicked breast cancers ass. At least so we thought until the cancer showed back up in her liver and the doctors only gave her six months to live. At first nothing changed for her life or mine after finding out the bad news in fact she made me promise not to tell my brothers or anyone else. She continued working up to about the last two months. That is when things started to fall apart. The first thing to go for my mother was her memory. I can remember coming home from work and my mother talking to me about going camping like I was five years old. Not knowing how to handle it I just played along with the conversation, it seemed to make her happy. This went on and off for about two weeks and then things really started heading down hill pretty quick. I had to get help from hospice care, to have help taking care of her, because she was basically bedridden and unable to care for herself. Hospice came into our home and set up a medical bed and other medical equipment in our formal living area, this was the open area in our house. At this point I quit my job to take care of her because hospice care was only coming to the house like twice a day the rest was up to me. I had made a promise to her not to let her die in a hospital and I was trying to keep that promise. As the days went on the care became more and more demanding not really physical but mentally. I was doing everything thing for her, from bathing, changing her clothes, and bed pan to forcing her to take the meds she still need to take for pain control. At this point she was no longer able to speak, it seemed like her mind was completely gone just a blank stare. My breaking point was met, I was unable to care for my mother at home anymore she had pretty much slipped into a coma. I had to have my mother moved to the hospital, I couldn’t keep that promise I made her and still to this day I beg for forgiveness from her. She was only in the hospital for three nights before she passed. My brothers and I took turns at night staying with her and my night was night three. That night was a special night, it was her birthday. On the night she passed away we got her a birthday cake and song happy birthday to our mother for the last time. After singing happy birthday and blowing out the candles we each gave her a hug. When it became my turn to give her a hug I told her it was ok for her to go, that we will be ok and I love you. It wasn’t long after that she passed away at the age of 40. Not long after my mother died my life begun to fall apart. I could not deal with people always asking me if I was ok or if I needed anything. I started pushing everyone away and shutting out the ones I love. I needed to make a positive change in my life because my mother would not want me to live this way. So I joined to U. S. Army and left home and everybody I loved. I didn’t really have a plan I just knew I needed my space and this was the only way I was going to get it. In fact I wrote a letter to my girlfriend breaking up with her on my flight to Germany, after I had completed all my initial training. I was completely alone for the first time after my mother died. Not a day goes by that I do not think about my mother and how her passing changed my life. Today I live my life the way I believe she would have wanted me to, with an open mind, trying to see the positives in every situation I find myself in. There are things I wish I would have handled differently when it comes to my love ones I left behind when I joined the Army. My mother’s passing away changed my life in so many ways and has dad a major impact on the way I raise my kids, I do not take the time I have with them for granted. You never know when your time is up, so I say make the most of it and never wait until tomorrow to tell someone you love them.

Organisation Behaviour

Option 3: Evaluate the statement that ‘organisational structure reflects and reinforces an unrealistic view of human rationality (Knights & Willmott, 2007)’. Introduction: Different authors have different definition toward organizational structure. Mintzberg (1979) defines the organization structure is defined as ‘The sum total of the ways in which it divides its labour into distinct task and then achieves coordination between them’ (Mintzberg, 1979, p. cited in Knights and Willmott, 2007, p. 197). In simple words, organizational structure is talking about the structure of an organization, how a company categorise their workers or management to achieve their goals. Basically, organizational structure is talking about the management system that include organic and mechanistic management system. In an organization, there will be a lot of matters happened because of the organization structure.Hence, people keep discover different management structure to assist in organizational structure like Taylor and Ford that influence the organization structure by using scientific method to classified the work of an organization and control the achievement of the organization (Fayol, 1949; Taylor, 1911cited in Singh, 2009). Lewin (1958) cited in Burnes (1996) provided that the planned model that designed for the organizational change is the best model.However, is there any the best structure for organization? When we treat one structure as the best structure for organization, we must consider the factors that will make the structure no longer applicable. Environment is the important influences that we cannot ignore about. The unstable of environment led the organization structure keep on changing. One of the changes in the structure of organizational was from mechanistic management system to organic management system.Mechanistic and organic of organizational structure are two formally form of management system that applied in organizational structure (Burns and Stalker, 1961). As what Kulmala and Uusi-Rauva (2005) claims that competition was changing from firm level to network level, which means from centralisation to decentralisation. Changing Of Environment More than 2,000 years ago the Greek philosopher Heraclitus(536-470 BC) claims that everything was continuous keep on changing and there was nothing permanent (Smith, 2011).Organizational structure is also the same, there are no the best structure for an organization since the environment is keep on changing. ‘‘There is no one best way to organize’’ and ‘‘any ways of organizing are not equally effective’’ (Galbraith, 1973 cited in Singh, 2009, p. 954). Environment and organization are interdependent, they depend on each other between an organization (pugh et al. 1963 cited in Child, n. d. ). Burns and Stalker (1961) cited in Singh (2009) proposed that appropriate organizational structure depends on environmental factors.Co ulson-Thomas (1991) cited in Strachan (1996) argues that business organizational is increasingly face unprecedented change in social, economic, political and business environment. Burn and Stalker (1961) cited in McMillan (n. d. ) claims that an organization must match and follow with the rate of change in its environment if the organization want to reach a maximum performance or achieve their goals. The performance of an organization depend on how they construct their structure to align with the environment (Mintzberg, 1979 cited in Nandakumar , Ghobadian and O’Regan, 2010).An example that shows the change of technology that led to the changes of organizational structure, the manner of hardware and software development resulted in architectures evolving over time, at the same time organization structures developed special forms to suit and fit their specific environmental and strategic requirements (Mukherji, 2002). An effective structure or strategy can promotes competitive advantage to strengthen an organization performance (Oosthuizen, 1997 cited in Nandakumar , Ghobadian and O’Regan, 2010 ) .Besides, there are a wide range of structures given to an organization to choose whether which structure is appropriate to them and can align to the environmental factors that they face, they can choose the most few effective structure mixed that fix to their different environmental problem faced since there are no one universal structure that applied by all organization (Singh, 2009). However, when environment is change again no matter due to technological or political factor, organization need to aware that whether their structure now is consists with the changing of the environment.If their structure is not the best in current environment, then they need to revise their structure again to get the most productive outcome. Otherwise, the change of environment may either lead to some benefit or harms to the organization. Thevenet (1988) cited in Soparnot (2011) believe that the change of organizational structure is always beneficial. However, Soparnot (2005) cited in Soparnot (2011) argued that the changes of structure can destabilize organization and it is risky and costly.In an organization, if they are manage according to hierarchy structure, there are different level of manager and different opinion towards the change of the organization exist, different people have their own idea, each will suggest different idea and this will wasting time and resources to test for it. Walston and Chou (2011) said that the greater the differences between hierarchical perceptions, the inefficiency of the organization change and effort.Therefore, there are no any best constant structure of organization, because the environment is keep on changing, what an organization can do is only keep on changing that align with the environmental changes. Mechanistic System Mechanistic management system is consist of hierarchic structure of control, authority , specialization , differentiation and centralized decision making (Burns and Stalker, 1961). Hierarchical structure is commonly carry out in an organizational chart form.Organizational chart show us the management structure or hierarchical structure, how the organization manage according to different department, or specialization. During the mid 20th century there was a trend for organizations to create huge corporate structures, often composed of many varied and different businesses, for instance, the Hanson Trust, Unilever, Trafalgar House, and GNK in the UK and General Electric in the USA (Mabey, Salaman and Storey, 2001 cited in McMillan, (n. . ). Hales and Rabey (2011) held that a good management is consists of specific job for specific person, clear role definitions for each job, clear job specification and so on. It is talking about mechanic system of organizational structure. In the hierarchical structure, decisions are made by top level and task are delegated to different department manager of middle level, and these managers will make sure the workers under them is kept in line with them (Hales and Rabey, 2011).Since that are not a teamwork which they do not share common interest but they need to do more than the person who make decision and thus make them do not have any motivation to do their best or produce the best idea. This may occur because everyone have different perceptions. As mentioned earlier, the greater difference between hierarchical perception, the inefficiency of the effort (Walston and Chou, 2011). When everyone have their own perception, but decision is not made by them, conflict will occur.Conflict usually occur in relation to decision and sometimes it may lead to threat (Beckhard and Dyer, 1983 cited in Frank et al. , 2011). Decision making of hierarchical structure is also a waste of time since there are different level in the organization, decision making need to go through from low to middle and the top, it take time and wast e of resources, when there are something happen between the level of authority, it need even more time than usual. Wang and Ahmed (2003) cited in Kulmala and Uusi-Rauva (2005) highlight organizational structure influence its decision making and the internal processes.Employees in an organization should not wait for manager comments or negotiations for organization sake (Kuitunen et al, 1999 cited in Kulmala and Uusi-Rauva, 2005). In order to reduce the conflict of decision making of the hierarchical structure and waste of time, the changes of this hierarchical structure is needed. Burns and Stalker (1961) highlight that in organic system, position in an organization is differentiated by the expertise, whoever have greater expertise can lead the team and he or she will have the best authority.For mechanistic system, people who control the organization is according to standardization of skill, it is control by the person who have undergone extensive training and socialization (Friedso n, 1970 cited in Abernethy and Stoelwinder, n. d. ). Burns and Stalker (1961) claims that the position of the leader is settled by consensus via voting in an organic system. When the position of the leader is agreed by voting, then it may consider fair because there are no any conflict of interest exist. However, for mechanistic system, position of the manager is the decision of the top level management.When the position of the leader is decided by the top level management people, there are inequality exists. Guy (1999) highlight that the increase of earnings inequality from the late 1970s until now is due to changes of organizational structure. When the decision is not reach the consensus of all but just solely based on the top level management, it seems like it is unfair. The top level may choose the one that is beneficial to him or her and promotes him or her to get higher position and this is not agreed by all. Organic SystemHence, Covin and Slevin(1990) cited in Altinay and Alt inay (2004) claims that organization often decentralize decision making authority, minimize the hierarchical structure and adopt free flow communication channels to make sure organization achieved higher performance. When talk about decentralization, actually it is talking about organic management system, Burns and Stalker(1961) said that organic management system is appropriate to the changing of environment, he describe organic management system as a network structure of control ,authority and communication, there are not alking about responsibilities of a person, but the responsible of the people in the network. Therefore, It is just like a team that achieve the same goals. However, the claimant that organization need to decentralize decision making was argued by Shields and Shields (1998) cited in Subramaniam and Mia (2001), said that not all managers accept the decentralization of organization structure because it will make outcomes of job unfavorable related such as low job sa tisfaction. For example, as what we have study now, we are choosing courses of education according to our interest.It is also the same as career, we will choose our job according to what we studied or what we like, if decentralize means that they are all working together without departmentalize, then we might need to do the job that we do not like and make us do not have the feeling of satisfaction when rushing for the work. Conclusion In conclusion, organizational structure is not fixed, it is not constant as all organization is using the same structure and monitor their work of organization.There will be no consensus on one particular structure of organization and thus make the organizational structure do not fixed. Actually, each structure will show their good and bad, when the structure is align with the change of environment or the structure is reach the consensus of all and thus achieve higher performance of organization, then this structure is consider as good. However, when the environment is change again , and people no longer agree on this structure, then this structure is no longer applicable , if this structure is insist in using, then it may bring harm to organization.Hence, there is no the best or the smartest structure for an organization (Mintzberg, 1979 cited in Wang and Ahmed, 2002). When the environment of the organization change, the structure of the organization also change according to the environment, this dynamism of the organization structure makes the organization do not have a fixed or constant strucuture (Martinsons & Martinsons, 1994 cited in Wang and Ahmed, 2002). No matter organic or mechanistic management system, as long as it is an effective structure that align with the environment, it will lead he organization to achieve superior performance. Organization structure do not fixed because mechanistic management system is applicable in some situation or organic management system is suitable in some situation or mixed of these two management system is necessary for some situation. In details, an organization can mixed the centralization and decentralization by apply both in their structure. Decentralization can motivate employees to enable them showing out their creative and innovative but not stop by top level manager.At the same time, some others part can be centralize to make sure employees follow the rules and regulation because some decision if freely make by employees on their own may create troublesome such as financing and investing decision. Hence, structure cannot fixed on whether it is centralization or decentralization (Buchanan and huczynski, 2010). Therefore, we cannot say that which structure is the best structure for organization because each of these structures play their own roles in different environmental changes. (2092 words) Bibliography: 1. Abernethy M. A. nd Stoelwinder, J. U. (n. d) â€Å"The relationship between organization structure and management control in hospitals: An elabora tion and test of Mintzberg’s professional bureaucracy model†, pp. 18-33. 2. Altinay, L. and Altinay, M. (2004) â€Å"The influence of organisational structure on entrepreneurial orientation and expansion performance†, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(6), pp. 334-344. 3. Burnes, B. (1996) â€Å"No such thing as †¦ a â€Å"one best way† to manage organizational change’, Management Decision, 34/10, pp. 11-18. 4. Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961) â€Å"The management of innovation†, London: Tavistock, pp. 103-108. 5. Child, J. (n. d) â€Å"Organizational strucuture, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice†, Sage Social Science Collections. 6. Frank, M. , Kessler, A. , Nose, L. , Suchy, D. (2011) â€Å"Conflicts in family firms: state of the art and perspectives for future research†, Journal of Family Business Management, 1(2), pp. 130-153. 7. Hales, S. and Rabey, G. (2011) â⠂¬Å"The frontline manager: fronting up to organisational change†, Industrial and Commercial Trainning, 43(6), pp. 368-376. 8. Knights, D. nd Willmott, H. (2007) Introducing organizational behaviour and management, South-Western Cengage Learning. 9. Kulmala, H. I. and Uusi-Rauva, E. (2005) â€Å"Network as a business environment: experiences from software industry†, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 10/3, pp. 169-178. 10. McMillan, E. (n. d. ) â€Å"Considering organization structure and design from a complexity paradigm perspective†, Open University. 11. Mukherji, A. (2002) â€Å"The evolution of information systems: their impact on organizations and structures†, Management Decision, 40/5, pp. 497-507. 12.Nandakumar, M. K. , Ghobadian, A. , O’Regan, N. (2010) â€Å"Business-level strategy and Performance: The moderating effects of environment and structure†, Management Decision, 48(6), pp. 907-939. 13. Singh, S. K. (2009) â⠂¬Å"Structuring organizations across industries in India†, Management Research News, 32(10), pp. 953-969. 14. Singh, S. K. (2009) â€Å"Structuring organizations across industries in India†, Management Research News, 32(10), pp. 953-969. 15. Smith, I. (2011) â€Å"Organisational quality and organisational change: Interconnecting paths to effectiveness†, Library Management, 32(1/2), pp. 11-128. 16. Strachan, P. A. (1996) â€Å"Managing transformational change: the learning organization and teamworking†, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, (2)2, pp. 32-40. 17. Subramaniam, N. and Mia, L. (2001) â€Å"The relation between decentralised structure, budgetary participation and organisational commitment: The moderating role of managers' value orientation towards innovation†, Accounting, Auditing ; Accountability Journal, 14(1), pp. 12-29. 18. Walston, S. and Chou, A. 2011) â€Å"CEO perceptions of organizational consensus and its impact on hospital restructuring outcomes†, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 25(2), pp. 176-194. 19. Wang, L. and Ahmed, P. K. (2002) â€Å"The Informal Structure: Hidden energies within the organization†, University of Wolverhampton, UK. 20. Guy, F. (1999) â€Å"Information technology, organization structure, and earnings inequality†, Birkbeck College, Malet St. 21. Buchanan D. A. and Huczynski, A. A. (2010) Organizational behaviour, Seventh edition, Pearson Education Limited. Organisation Behaviour Option 3: Evaluate the statement that ‘organisational structure reflects and reinforces an unrealistic view of human rationality (Knights & Willmott, 2007)’. Introduction: Different authors have different definition toward organizational structure. Mintzberg (1979) defines the organization structure is defined as ‘The sum total of the ways in which it divides its labour into distinct task and then achieves coordination between them’ (Mintzberg, 1979, p. cited in Knights and Willmott, 2007, p. 197). In simple words, organizational structure is talking about the structure of an organization, how a company categorise their workers or management to achieve their goals. Basically, organizational structure is talking about the management system that include organic and mechanistic management system. In an organization, there will be a lot of matters happened because of the organization structure.Hence, people keep discover different management structure to assist in organizational structure like Taylor and Ford that influence the organization structure by using scientific method to classified the work of an organization and control the achievement of the organization (Fayol, 1949; Taylor, 1911cited in Singh, 2009). Lewin (1958) cited in Burnes (1996) provided that the planned model that designed for the organizational change is the best model.However, is there any the best structure for organization? When we treat one structure as the best structure for organization, we must consider the factors that will make the structure no longer applicable. Environment is the important influences that we cannot ignore about. The unstable of environment led the organization structure keep on changing. One of the changes in the structure of organizational was from mechanistic management system to organic management system.Mechanistic and organic of organizational structure are two formally form of management system that applied in organizational structure (Burns and Stalker, 1961). As what Kulmala and Uusi-Rauva (2005) claims that competition was changing from firm level to network level, which means from centralisation to decentralisation. Changing Of Environment More than 2,000 years ago the Greek philosopher Heraclitus(536-470 BC) claims that everything was continuous keep on changing and there was nothing permanent (Smith, 2011).Organizational structure is also the same, there are no the best structure for an organization since the environment is keep on changing. ‘‘There is no one best way to organize’’ and ‘‘any ways of organizing are not equally effective’’ (Galbraith, 1973 cited in Singh, 2009, p. 954). Environment and organization are interdependent, they depend on each other between an organization (pugh et al. 1963 cited in Child, n. d. ). Burns and Stalker (1961) cited in Singh (2009) proposed that appropriate organizational structure depends on environmental factors.Co ulson-Thomas (1991) cited in Strachan (1996) argues that business organizational is increasingly face unprecedented change in social, economic, political and business environment. Burn and Stalker (1961) cited in McMillan (n. d. ) claims that an organization must match and follow with the rate of change in its environment if the organization want to reach a maximum performance or achieve their goals. The performance of an organization depend on how they construct their structure to align with the environment (Mintzberg, 1979 cited in Nandakumar , Ghobadian and O’Regan, 2010).An example that shows the change of technology that led to the changes of organizational structure, the manner of hardware and software development resulted in architectures evolving over time, at the same time organization structures developed special forms to suit and fit their specific environmental and strategic requirements (Mukherji, 2002). An effective structure or strategy can promotes competitive advantage to strengthen an organization performance (Oosthuizen, 1997 cited in Nandakumar , Ghobadian and O’Regan, 2010 ) .Besides, there are a wide range of structures given to an organization to choose whether which structure is appropriate to them and can align to the environmental factors that they face, they can choose the most few effective structure mixed that fix to their different environmental problem faced since there are no one universal structure that applied by all organization (Singh, 2009). However, when environment is change again no matter due to technological or political factor, organization need to aware that whether their structure now is consists with the changing of the environment.If their structure is not the best in current environment, then they need to revise their structure again to get the most productive outcome. Otherwise, the change of environment may either lead to some benefit or harms to the organization. Thevenet (1988) cited in Soparnot (2011) believe that the change of organizational structure is always beneficial. However, Soparnot (2005) cited in Soparnot (2011) argued that the changes of structure can destabilize organization and it is risky and costly.In an organization, if they are manage according to hierarchy structure, there are different level of manager and different opinion towards the change of the organization exist, different people have their own idea, each will suggest different idea and this will wasting time and resources to test for it. Walston and Chou (2011) said that the greater the differences between hierarchical perceptions, the inefficiency of the organization change and effort.Therefore, there are no any best constant structure of organization, because the environment is keep on changing, what an organization can do is only keep on changing that align with the environmental changes. Mechanistic System Mechanistic management system is consist of hierarchic structure of control, authority , specialization , differentiation and centralized decision making (Burns and Stalker, 1961). Hierarchical structure is commonly carry out in an organizational chart form.Organizational chart show us the management structure or hierarchical structure, how the organization manage according to different department, or specialization. During the mid 20th century there was a trend for organizations to create huge corporate structures, often composed of many varied and different businesses, for instance, the Hanson Trust, Unilever, Trafalgar House, and GNK in the UK and General Electric in the USA (Mabey, Salaman and Storey, 2001 cited in McMillan, (n. . ). Hales and Rabey (2011) held that a good management is consists of specific job for specific person, clear role definitions for each job, clear job specification and so on. It is talking about mechanic system of organizational structure. In the hierarchical structure, decisions are made by top level and task are delegated to different department manager of middle level, and these managers will make sure the workers under them is kept in line with them (Hales and Rabey, 2011).Since that are not a teamwork which they do not share common interest but they need to do more than the person who make decision and thus make them do not have any motivation to do their best or produce the best idea. This may occur because everyone have different perceptions. As mentioned earlier, the greater difference between hierarchical perception, the inefficiency of the effort (Walston and Chou, 2011). When everyone have their own perception, but decision is not made by them, conflict will occur.Conflict usually occur in relation to decision and sometimes it may lead to threat (Beckhard and Dyer, 1983 cited in Frank et al. , 2011). Decision making of hierarchical structure is also a waste of time since there are different level in the organization, decision making need to go through from low to middle and the top, it take time and wast e of resources, when there are something happen between the level of authority, it need even more time than usual. Wang and Ahmed (2003) cited in Kulmala and Uusi-Rauva (2005) highlight organizational structure influence its decision making and the internal processes.Employees in an organization should not wait for manager comments or negotiations for organization sake (Kuitunen et al, 1999 cited in Kulmala and Uusi-Rauva, 2005). In order to reduce the conflict of decision making of the hierarchical structure and waste of time, the changes of this hierarchical structure is needed. Burns and Stalker (1961) highlight that in organic system, position in an organization is differentiated by the expertise, whoever have greater expertise can lead the team and he or she will have the best authority.For mechanistic system, people who control the organization is according to standardization of skill, it is control by the person who have undergone extensive training and socialization (Friedso n, 1970 cited in Abernethy and Stoelwinder, n. d. ). Burns and Stalker (1961) claims that the position of the leader is settled by consensus via voting in an organic system. When the position of the leader is agreed by voting, then it may consider fair because there are no any conflict of interest exist. However, for mechanistic system, position of the manager is the decision of the top level management.When the position of the leader is decided by the top level management people, there are inequality exists. Guy (1999) highlight that the increase of earnings inequality from the late 1970s until now is due to changes of organizational structure. When the decision is not reach the consensus of all but just solely based on the top level management, it seems like it is unfair. The top level may choose the one that is beneficial to him or her and promotes him or her to get higher position and this is not agreed by all. Organic SystemHence, Covin and Slevin(1990) cited in Altinay and Alt inay (2004) claims that organization often decentralize decision making authority, minimize the hierarchical structure and adopt free flow communication channels to make sure organization achieved higher performance. When talk about decentralization, actually it is talking about organic management system, Burns and Stalker(1961) said that organic management system is appropriate to the changing of environment, he describe organic management system as a network structure of control ,authority and communication, there are not alking about responsibilities of a person, but the responsible of the people in the network. Therefore, It is just like a team that achieve the same goals. However, the claimant that organization need to decentralize decision making was argued by Shields and Shields (1998) cited in Subramaniam and Mia (2001), said that not all managers accept the decentralization of organization structure because it will make outcomes of job unfavorable related such as low job sa tisfaction. For example, as what we have study now, we are choosing courses of education according to our interest.It is also the same as career, we will choose our job according to what we studied or what we like, if decentralize means that they are all working together without departmentalize, then we might need to do the job that we do not like and make us do not have the feeling of satisfaction when rushing for the work. Conclusion In conclusion, organizational structure is not fixed, it is not constant as all organization is using the same structure and monitor their work of organization.There will be no consensus on one particular structure of organization and thus make the organizational structure do not fixed. Actually, each structure will show their good and bad, when the structure is align with the change of environment or the structure is reach the consensus of all and thus achieve higher performance of organization, then this structure is consider as good. However, when the environment is change again , and people no longer agree on this structure, then this structure is no longer applicable , if this structure is insist in using, then it may bring harm to organization.Hence, there is no the best or the smartest structure for an organization (Mintzberg, 1979 cited in Wang and Ahmed, 2002). When the environment of the organization change, the structure of the organization also change according to the environment, this dynamism of the organization structure makes the organization do not have a fixed or constant strucuture (Martinsons & Martinsons, 1994 cited in Wang and Ahmed, 2002). No matter organic or mechanistic management system, as long as it is an effective structure that align with the environment, it will lead he organization to achieve superior performance. Organization structure do not fixed because mechanistic management system is applicable in some situation or organic management system is suitable in some situation or mixed of these two management system is necessary for some situation. In details, an organization can mixed the centralization and decentralization by apply both in their structure. Decentralization can motivate employees to enable them showing out their creative and innovative but not stop by top level manager.At the same time, some others part can be centralize to make sure employees follow the rules and regulation because some decision if freely make by employees on their own may create troublesome such as financing and investing decision. Hence, structure cannot fixed on whether it is centralization or decentralization (Buchanan and huczynski, 2010). Therefore, we cannot say that which structure is the best structure for organization because each of these structures play their own roles in different environmental changes. (2092 words) Bibliography: 1. Abernethy M. A. nd Stoelwinder, J. U. (n. d) â€Å"The relationship between organization structure and management control in hospitals: An elabora tion and test of Mintzberg’s professional bureaucracy model†, pp. 18-33. 2. Altinay, L. and Altinay, M. (2004) â€Å"The influence of organisational structure on entrepreneurial orientation and expansion performance†, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(6), pp. 334-344. 3. Burnes, B. (1996) â€Å"No such thing as †¦ a â€Å"one best way† to manage organizational change’, Management Decision, 34/10, pp. 11-18. 4. Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961) â€Å"The management of innovation†, London: Tavistock, pp. 103-108. 5. Child, J. (n. d) â€Å"Organizational strucuture, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice†, Sage Social Science Collections. 6. Frank, M. , Kessler, A. , Nose, L. , Suchy, D. (2011) â€Å"Conflicts in family firms: state of the art and perspectives for future research†, Journal of Family Business Management, 1(2), pp. 130-153. 7. Hales, S. and Rabey, G. (2011) â⠂¬Å"The frontline manager: fronting up to organisational change†, Industrial and Commercial Trainning, 43(6), pp. 368-376. 8. Knights, D. nd Willmott, H. (2007) Introducing organizational behaviour and management, South-Western Cengage Learning. 9. Kulmala, H. I. and Uusi-Rauva, E. (2005) â€Å"Network as a business environment: experiences from software industry†, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 10/3, pp. 169-178. 10. McMillan, E. (n. d. ) â€Å"Considering organization structure and design from a complexity paradigm perspective†, Open University. 11. Mukherji, A. (2002) â€Å"The evolution of information systems: their impact on organizations and structures†, Management Decision, 40/5, pp. 497-507. 12.Nandakumar, M. K. , Ghobadian, A. , O’Regan, N. (2010) â€Å"Business-level strategy and Performance: The moderating effects of environment and structure†, Management Decision, 48(6), pp. 907-939. 13. Singh, S. K. (2009) â⠂¬Å"Structuring organizations across industries in India†, Management Research News, 32(10), pp. 953-969. 14. Singh, S. K. (2009) â€Å"Structuring organizations across industries in India†, Management Research News, 32(10), pp. 953-969. 15. Smith, I. (2011) â€Å"Organisational quality and organisational change: Interconnecting paths to effectiveness†, Library Management, 32(1/2), pp. 11-128. 16. Strachan, P. A. (1996) â€Å"Managing transformational change: the learning organization and teamworking†, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, (2)2, pp. 32-40. 17. Subramaniam, N. and Mia, L. (2001) â€Å"The relation between decentralised structure, budgetary participation and organisational commitment: The moderating role of managers' value orientation towards innovation†, Accounting, Auditing ; Accountability Journal, 14(1), pp. 12-29. 18. Walston, S. and Chou, A. 2011) â€Å"CEO perceptions of organizational consensus and its impact on hospital restructuring outcomes†, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 25(2), pp. 176-194. 19. Wang, L. and Ahmed, P. K. (2002) â€Å"The Informal Structure: Hidden energies within the organization†, University of Wolverhampton, UK. 20. Guy, F. (1999) â€Å"Information technology, organization structure, and earnings inequality†, Birkbeck College, Malet St. 21. Buchanan D. A. and Huczynski, A. A. (2010) Organizational behaviour, Seventh edition, Pearson Education Limited.