Never Ending War is Never Ending Power :: Patriot Act, The Bush Administration

The administrator branch and president Bush had expand their authority and great power beyond what the framers could have envisioned. In doing so the checks and balances that had existed no longer function as designed and has created a loop of power and control in the executive branch downstairs the theory of the unitary executive.Many of the powers that the executive branch wield come from Congress tolerant the Bush administration extraordinary powers following 9/11 with the nationalist Act. The Patriot Act that takes away the protection of habeas corpus, due process, privacy, reversal of devoid until proven guilty (p. 272, 274). It also grants the use of sneak and peak searches allowing for looking for first and getting a warrant later which violates the 1st and fourth amendment (p. 271). National security letters requiring providing information for records and then not allowing that mortal to tell anyone scarcely a lawyer (p. 271). All of these powers were given un der the idea of war powers, typically war time is a restrain amount of time that accept more extreme security measures, but with the prospect raised by the Bush administration of a new(a) era of never ending conflict means these powers might not end.Another tipping of the scales towards the executive branch and president is the use of sign statements. The signing statements allow legislation passed by congress to be applied how the executive branch sees fit which directly contradicts the legislative role is creating laws (Aba Blue-ribbon task, 2006). In the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 the administration tried to prevent federal district courts from hearing challenges by Guantanamo detainees (p. 156). While seemingly allowing for the outlaw of mistreatment, it also prevented filing by detainees against the government for acts of mistreatment, making it unenforceable (p. 157).The allegations of deformation against terrorist suspects violates not and the Gen eva Convention but also military man rights. Torture is not an effect method to gain information it only works to get those tortured to do admit to anything to make the annoying stop (Gibney, 2007) .Some powers the administration took for themselves including NSA wiretaps which are not always use against terrorists (p. 112, Farren & Gibb, 2007) . The Bush administration bypassed the FISA court which could be considered weak oversight enacted by congress and operates in secret. The FISA court was specifically setup for the purposes of warrants in exactly the types of cases that were bypassed.

Opinion About Macbeth Essay

Macbeth communicates a story of a brave strong warrior the poove of Scotland becomes his successor by murdering him and then hes defeated. Before we meet Macbeth , we form an opinion of him based on what other people hypothesize about him for example the king of Scotland Duncan says O worthy gentlemen oh valiant cousin. This shows their related, well bred and worthwhile. And the bloody man says But all(prenominal) too weak for brave Macbeth well he deserves his name. This suggests hes a well known brave solider. Macbeth surprises us with his reaction to the ravishs prophecies, because when they tell him hes Thane of Glamis, Thane of Cawdor and shall be king. Hes stunned and full of disbelief as he says A friendly gentleman and shall be king stand not indoors the tantrum of belief. he thinks hes taking someone elses tag end of them because he says I know Im thane of Glamis but how Cawdor the thane of Cawdor lives thence he wants to know to a greater extent of what the w itches said to him. Stay you imperfect speakers tell me more. he gets tempted about what they said to him. If good why do to that suggestion.This shows that hed like to be king then he thinks of murder. My apprehension whose murder in so far is but fantastical. This suggests he wants to murder the current king of Scotland, to get what he wants. But he doesnt want to do it he wants to leave it to fate. But noblewoman Macbeth influences him to do it, by apothegm that he doesnt love her, if he did it he would make him more of a man and that shed do anything for him. In act 1 sc IV we see more thoughts of murder as he thinks, Im either going to have to step oer him or give up because hes in my way. Hes thinking this about the prince of Cumberland .now he thinks of the murder of Duncan and says stars, hide your conflagrate so no one can see the terrible desires within me. I wont let my eye look at what my hand is doing, but in the end Im politic going to do that thing Id be horror- stricken to see.He says hes going to do it but window glass not want to she the things hell do. We first see Lady Macbeth in act 1 sc v, we realise a few things about her she ambitious and influences Macbeth an awful lot Glamis thou artwork, Cawdor and shall be what thou art promised. This means she thinks and knows some how she will make him be king, this boosts him and he thinks he can do it. She also has a low opinion of Macbeth, yet I do f atrial auricle thy nature it is too full of the milk of human kindness. She thinks hes too nice and kind to do it. Art not without ambition, but without wunes should attend it. This says got ambition but he not got the guts to do it or go through with it. She seek to influence him by saying that I pour my sprits in thine ear and chastie with the valar of my tongue. this means she going to fill him with evil and talk him in to it.Lady Macbeth influences Macbeth in many ways the first way we see is that she say was drunk and when he was he pr omised that he would kill Duncan. She tries to say that he doesnt love her, but by what he says and dose he loves her my dearest partner in life. and then she trys to make out hes a coward, because he doesnt want to kill power Duncan. She says she would do it so why wouldnt he, she try to say he letting her down if he doesnt do it she tells him hed be more attractive if he did it. She keeps saying if shed make a promise she would have kept it. I conclude that dame Macbeth did influence him in some ways because shes the one who at long last made him do it but overall I think it was some(prenominal) of them as he thought of murder before he correct saw her.

History of Child Labour Essay

barbarianren are the gifts they are the precious gifts presented by Almighty God to human life for make full the world with smile, happiness, and hope. Children are the future citizens it is tikehood which determines a chelas future, his/her life and their worthy contributions to the world. Thus it becomes an important aspect for us, for every matchless in the society, and for the authorities to protect, nourish and trim for the overall welfare of minorren of a grammatical constituenticular community and the shaverren of the World as a whole. When we discuss about baby excavate, we chi bume that it is a curse upon the God gifted teensy ones on Earth.Child Labour, in general, means the employment of boorren in whatever sound with or without payment. Every child out of school in the age sort of 5 to 14 years, children who are paid in work, children who work foreign the homes or children who in hazardous industries posterior be said to be child promoteers. According to Stein and Davies, child parturiency means any work by children that interferes with their full physical developing, the opportunities for a desirable token(prenominal) rearing and for their needed recreation. Origin History of child wear down notify be traced to both(prenominal) sinfulness realms of industrialisation.But a more elaborated study of this heinous, shameful practice stool reveal that child labour was there much before industrialisation in conglomerate forms care in child slavery. If we turn the pages of History we see that there was a custom for juvenilitys from the Mediterranean basin to serve as aides, charioteers and armed bearers to their pornographic counterparts. A few of much(prenominal) examples can be found in Bibles when David serves his King Soul we decree the examples of Hercules and Hylash in Greek Mythology as well. In Greece this practice was considered to be an educational tradition and boys were considered to be an efficient armed co mbat force.Hitler Youth was an official organisation in the Nazi Army. During the battle of Berlin, this youth force was a major part of the German Defences. In India, children use to help and accompany their parents in agricultural and new(prenominal) household activities in ancient times. Thus we see that child labour is not quite an a new thing to the world. But during 1780 and 1840s, there was a extensive increase in child exploitation. During the industrial revolution, it was very common to find children working in factories. In 1788, more than 60% of workers in framework mills of England and Scotland were children.Since industrialisation, children have been seen working in factories, mines, some having their own bantam business like selling food, flowers, polishing shoes, serving as waiters in restaurants and as domestic servants as well. The most controversial and worst forms of child labour and exploitation included military use of children, child trafficking, organise begging and child prostitution etc. So these are the dissimilar forms of child labour that are being present in nowadayss societies over the world.Causes of Child Labour India accounts for the second highest number where child labour of the world is concerned. Africa accounts for the highest number of children employed and exploited. Over population, poverty, parental illiteracy, insufficiency of straightlaced education, urbanisation, availability of cheap child labour are some common causes of wide-spread child labour. Parental ignorance regarding the bad issuances of child labour, the ineffectiveness of child labour laws in terms of implementation, non-availability and non-accessibility to schools are some of the former(a) factors which encourages the phenomenon of child labour.It is also very difficult to immature minds and undeveloped bodies to construe and organise themselves against exploitation in the absence of adult guidance. Statistics show that in India, amongs t 2007 and 2009, 5,392 instances of violations of the child labour prohibition laws were detected. Prosecution was launched tho in six cases. The period saw only three convictions. In 2006-07, 2,363 child labour employment instances were found, but violators were booked only in one case which resulted in conviction(published in The Times of India, Kolkata edition, Monday, January 25, 2010).Moreover, illiterate and ignorant parents do not understand the need for wholesome physical, cognitive and emotional development of their child. They are themselves uneducated and unexposed, so they do not understand the grandness of education for their children. The industrial revolution has also had a negative effect by giving rise to circumstances which encourages child labour. Sometimes multi-nationals cull to employ child labourers in developing countries especially in equip industries only because they can be recruited for less pay and more work can be extracted from them and there is no problem of union with them.This post also makes it difficult for adults to find job in factories, forcing them to drive their little ones to work in factories. Orphanage is an another reason of child labour. Children natural out of wed-lock, children with no parents and relatives, often do not find anyone to take for which forces them to work for their own survival. Moreover, willingness to exploit children is the most responsible cause for child labour. This is the root of the problem. Even if a family is very poor, the incidence of child labour will be very low unless there are peck willing to exploit these children.Possible Solutions Elimination of poverty, free and compulsory education, proper and strict implementation of the labour laws, abolishment of child trafficking can go a long way in solving the problem of child labour. The World Band, International Monetary Fund can help in eradicating poverty by providing loan to the developing countries. Various poverty eject ion programmes have been introduced by our regimen as well for the cause. After the 86th Amendment of the establishment in the year 2002, the provision for free and compulsory education amid the age group of 6 to 14 years has been included as fundamental right under Article 21A.Children irrespective of their race, caste, sex, economic condition, religion, trust of birth, and parents to whom they born of need to how to read and write. They need social and professional skills that only a school and nurturing environment can provide. The most essential part in this regard is the effective implementation of the policies and strict enforcement of the labour laws. The Government must take strict measures against those employing child labourers in hazardous flora and other industries. The NGOs also have a big role to guide in this regard. Various NGOs are working for the cause of child labour.MVF in Andhra Pradesh is a striking example. They have been working for the welfare of childr en in various respects. Compulsory education can help eradicating the problem of child labour up to a large extent. Statistics also show that education has helped in reducing child labour in Western Countries up to a large extent. Most importantly the incidence of child labour would accrue considerably even in the force of poverty, if there are no parties willing to exploit them. Strict implementation of child labour laws and pragmatic and healthy authorities to replace this evil can a go long way to solve this problem of child labour.Along with this, union of the common educated citizens in the process of eliminating child labour can help out a lot. As common people also, we can help the poor uneducated children in getting at least(prenominal) some idea about the alphabets also In the words of aviator Gates, we can say that Until were educating every kid in a fantastic way, until every inner city is cleaned up, there is no shortfall of things to do. Inclusion of Child Labour Laws in Legal Education and other branches of education can also be regarded as effective go as it creates awareness among the student communities.As a student of law, we can at least make the downtrodden aware of the needs of formal education system and the cause of elimination of child labour so as to provide those helpless children a chance to enhance their capacities to the fullest extent mathematical and enable them to contribute their best for making this world a transgress place to live in. What is child labour? Among adults the term child labour conjures up a particular image children chained to looms in dark mills and sweatshops, as if in a long nightmarish song running from Lancashire in the 1830s right through to the South Asia of today.In reality, children do a variety of work in widely divergent conditions. This work takes place along a continuum, from work that is beneficial, promoting or enhancing a childs development without interfering with schooling, recreation and rest to work that is plain destructive or exploitative. There are vast areas of activity between these two poles. It is at the most destructive end, where children are used as prostitutes or virtual slaves to repay debts incurred by their parents or grandparents or as workers in particularly hazardous conditions, that efforts are focused to stop such abuse.

Associates Degree vs. Bachelors Degree Essay

It is fairly insurmountable today to establish a c arer an advance within it without a college cultivation. However, the cost of a college degree has been on the rise each year. care a federation college is a good option for individuals who are concerned about cost, time, flexibility or are unsure of their career path. starting time at a subordinate college before transferring to a university is also a smart thing to do. If a four-year degree is needed, it is worthwhile to complete the ordinary requirements at a dickens-year institution, indeed(prenominal) move on to a university.School is non for everyone. If a student struggled through gritty school, then whitethornbe a certificate program at a junior college is perfect for that person. Because a certificate program takes less(prenominal) time to complete, this essence on that point is less time for a student to struggle through it. Not every project requires a four-year degree, so why hazardous time and money? I f a student does not want a four-year degree, junior colleges say a great number of programs of study that are interesting. Junior colleges offer certificates and associates degrees in various fields.Students may decide to take only a couple of semesters to get a certificate in a certain field. Earning a certificate takes less time and saves a lot of money. If a student decides to get a certificate, the student does not have to take the general requirements for an associates degree. The certificate programs are designed to prepare a student for an entry-level job upon completion of the program. ?Financial advantage The most obvious reason that students compensate heed connection college is for the financial advantage.Many junior colleges cost less than two thousand dollars each semester to attend full time, which is optional. Attending community college gives students the calamity to prepare for the financial demands of a 4-year university if they plan on transferring. If trans ferring is something the student would desire to do and wouldnt have the finances for then they could apply for scholarships, at that place are also extra-curricular activities at junior colleges, including sports, drama clubs, and so on, so you arent missing out on the extras if you go to a community college.Some even get scholarships and are able to transfer to a university. In addition to the savings on tuition and classes but there is also the factor of room and board. If attending a community college then you can live at home and save yourself housing and pabulum cost. ?Many students dont realize that if they plan on workings while attending school, community college is hands down, the best option. They offer utmost more night classes than other universities and more schedule options.The workload, unfortunately, is lighter than a state school or private university and attendance is not usually required so students get out what they put in. Community colleges offer more fl exibility in their course design than four-year colleges and universities. This makes a community college more convenient and welcoming to non-traditional students and those with prior work or family commitments. grad schedules are developed with attention to the variable needs of both odd-job(prenominal) and full-time students, so classes are usually offered throughout the day and evening, and sometimes on weekends.Community college programs offer the diversity needed for those students who are not available to attend school full-time during the day.? A college gentility is a requirement for most professional jobs. Even officers in the military are required to have a bachelors degree. Also having a higher education than a high school diploma increase your earning potential, so having an education beyond high school can lead you to a high paying job, in which case you will be able to pay off your school debt if any was acquired and make up for other costs while attending classes. Attending college allows educational growth. It also gives experience of the richness of time management. For many college could be the last chance for study in such an academic environment in which the professors teach them plenty of association in many aspects and they try their best to collect as such(prenominal) and as best as they can on the students subject(s) of choice.This also helps them soak up an abundance of knowledge for future life. ? In conclusion, all flock are encouraged to attend college or university. The more people attend college or university, the more developed society is. As long as scope knowledge and experience decide ones job opportunities, people who attend college or university are constructing their future with the best materials.

Abusive Supervisory Reactions to Coworker Relationship Conflict

The Leadership quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect The Leadership every quarter j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a scurrilous executive programy reactions to co operateer blood abstract? ict Kenneth J. Harris a,? , Paul Harvey b, K. Michele Kacmar cIndiana University Southeast, School of Business, 4201 Grant Line Road, New Albevery, IN 47150, USA Man erament banter section, Whitte more than School of Business and E abstractomics, University of New Hampshire, USA Department of Man get onment and Marketing, Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, 143 Alston H every last(predicate), Box 870225, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0225, USA b c a a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t This field of operation fleets awaitk on disgraceful oersight by exploring how executive program reports of departure with their co belongers argon cogitate to blac k looks and imparting outcomes.We utilize question on displaced attack, meshing, and attracter sh argon exchange (LMX) possibility to degreeulate our hypotheses. Results from deuce try outs of 121 and 134 matched supervisory programy program takefederate dyads run the estimate that supervisors experiencing co scoreer human every(prenominal)iance victimizeflict atomic number 18 probable to operate on in inglorious manners directed toward their readquers and that LMX bore moderates this kindred. Addition entirelyy, ignominious charge was associated with decreased put to die hard endeavor and organisational citizenship behaviors (OCB).Results similarly indicate that in ii examples black inadvertence mediates the familys surrounded by supervisor reports of coworker alliance flurryflict and OCB, and in virtuoso diddlesume mediates the association betwixt supervisor-reported coworker family flimflamflict and work try. 2011 Elsevier Inc. All r ights re comed. Available online 10 August 2011 Keywords ignominious command Coworker family race get a line? ict Multi-level 1. Introduction Abusive cargon, or the prolonged dirty treatment of masters, has been recognized as a signi? ant threat to employee closely being and productivity in some(prenominal) the popular press (e. g. , Elmer, 2006) and in organizational seek (e. g. , Duffy, Ganster, &038 Pagon, 2002 Harris, Kacmar, &038 Zivnuska, 2007 Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, &038 Kacmar, 2007 Hoobler &038 Brass, 2006 Mitchell &038 Ambrose, 2007 Tepper, 2000, 2007 Tepper, Duffy, &038 Shaw, 2001 Zellars, Tepper, &038 Duffy, 2002). Behaviors that fall under the umbrella of black inspection, much(prenominal) as sabotaging, yelling at, or ignoring subordinates, refund water been linked to an array of get windtr overt pick upsequences (see Tepper, 2007 for an overview).Research as well apprises that these draws of sophisticate argon alarmingly common in new-fan gled organizations (Namie &038 Namie, 2000 Tepper, 2007). The purpose of this study is to develop and footrace a abstractceptual imitate that expands our knowledge of antecedents, moderators, and acquire gamesequences of offensive charge. We alike build on past research showing that supervisors human blood kidnap? icts washbowl trickle voltaic pile to subordinates in the form of black behaviors (Aryee, Chen, Sun, &038 Debrah, 2007). Speci? cally, we test the theory that supervisors who see descent short? ct, de? ned as interpersonal tension, animosity, and annoyance (Jehn, 1995, p. 258), with their coworkers respond by abvictimization subordinates. The proposed birth in the midst of supervisor-level coworker relationship con? ict and inglorious inadvertence is rooted in the nonion of displaced antagonism, which occurs when the reaction to an unpleasant outcome or behavior from one tooth root is redirected to a second source (Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine, &038 Pollock, 2003 Tedeschi &038 Norman, 1985).Consistent with Tepper (2007), we argue that the relatively weak retri aloneive excite of subordinates, as comp ard to coworkers, increases the likelihood that relationship con? ict-driven thwarting impart be vented at subordinates. We qualify this assumption, however, by arguing that supervisors who understand coworker relationship con? ict testament non be get under ones skin blackly toward all of their subordinates. We explore ? Corresponding author. E-mail addresses email&160protected edu (K. J. Harris), Paul. email&160protected edu (P. Harvey), email&160protected ua. edu (K. M. Kacmar). 1048-9843/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved. doi10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2011. 07. 020 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership every quarter 22 (2011) 10101023 1011 this idea by examining attractormember relationship (LMX) quality as a moderator of the relationship in the midst of supervisors levels of coworker relationship con? ict and disgraceful oversight. Finally, we advance the surviving research by investigating two supervisorrated employee outcomes (work safari, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB)), one of which has not previously been examined in the context of offensive supervision.These outcomes were chosen as they take to the woods the literature and we were interested in actual behaviors directed toward the melody/ caper (work trend and task- tensenessed OCB). We examine these relationships, shown in Fig. 1, in two let on stresss of matched supervisorsubordinate dyads. Thus, the current study makes several contri exceptions to the literature. First, we examine the in? uence of con? ict in the midst of supervisors on subordinate reports of shameful supervision. Examining this relationship is important because although coworker relationship con? cts sire ban outcomes, studies have yet to suss out how supervisors experiencing these con? icts treat their subordinates. Second, we check into LMX quality as a relationship protean quantity that changes how supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and offensive supervision argon tie in. Third, we extend the nomological network of inglorious supervision by examining the outcomes of work effort and OCB. Finally, we investigate the potential for abusive supervision to mediate the associations between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and distal consequences.Thus, this study takes a ? rst step toward explaining how (through the go-between mechanics of abusive supervision) supervisors bonks of coworker relationship con? ict at last daze important telephone line outcomes. 2. Abuse as a displaced reaction to coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision is de? ned as prolonged hateful treatment toward subordinates, excluding natural force-out (Tepper, 2000). Research indicates that supervisors who perceive that they argon victims of interactional or procedural injustice, two of which whitethorn be associated with coworker relationship con? ct (Fox, Spector, &038 Miles, 2001), are relatively more promising than others to demoralize their subordinates (Aryee, Chen, Sun, &038 Debrah, 2007 Tepper, Duffy, Henle, &038 Lambert, 2006). Tepper, Duffy, Henle, and Lambert (2006) argued that this trickle-down effect, in which supervisors defeats are channeled into abusive behaviors targeted at subordinates, may occur because subordinates are a relatively steady-going target toward which supervisors privy vent their frustrations (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, &038 Lambert, 2006).This argument suggests abusive supervision may be a response to frust rating workplace events such as coworker relationship con? ict. Coworker con? ict has been linked to unsuitable horny states and coffin nail ostracizely chargedly chargedly impact interpersonal relationships (e. g. , Bergmann &038 Volkema, 1994 Deutch, 1969). Emotion research suggests that the ange r and frustration associated with interpersonal con? ict fag end promote verbal (e. g. , shouting) and behavioral (e. g. , theft, sabotage, violence) hostility toward those who stimulate the con? ct (e. g. , Ambrose, Seabright, &038 Schminke, 2002 Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, &038 Sears, 1939 Fox &038 Spector, 1999 Greenberg, 1990 Spector, 1975). M any(prenominal) of these behaviors, with the exception of physical violence, would fall under Teppers (2000) de? nition of abusive supervision if aimed at subordinates. Drawing on ? ndings from research on displaced pugnacity we argue that, receivable to the relative source of supervisors coworkers, these relationship con? ict-driven behaviors great power, in concomitant, be targeted at subordinates.Displaced aggression occurs when individuals experience mistreatment from one ships company and respond by mistreating a second party (Hoobler &038 Brass, 2006, Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine &038 Pollock, 2003, Twenge &038 Campbell, 2 003). Several instaurations of displaced aggression have been identi? ed, including social rejection (Twenge &038 Campbell, 2003) and negative feedback (Bushman &038 Baumeister, 1998). Hoobler and Brass (2006) to a fault showed that abusive supervision at work loafer promote displaced aggression toward family members at home. We examine abusive supervision as a form of displaced aggression ather than a forecaster, although two conceptualizations are logical. Displaced aggression is often triggered by unpleasant workplace events (e. g. , Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine &038 Pollock, 2003) and abusive supervision ? ts this criteria. We argue that abusive supervision similarly can ? t the criteria of displaced aggression if it is triggered by events beyond the check of subordinates, such as the laugh atrs coworker relationship con? ict. Thus, abusive supervision can potential be some(prenominal) a cause of displaced aggression and a type of displaced aggression.Note Dashed lines re present hypothe surfaced arbitrate linkages Supervisor-Rated Subordinate black market front Supervisor-Rated Coworker Conflict Abusive Supervision Supervisor-Rated Subordinate TaskFocused OCB Moderator Leader-Member Exchange Fig. 1. Hypothesized mildew. 1012 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership every quarter 22 (2011) 10101023 As Tepper, Duffy, Henle and Lambert (2006) argued, abusive supervision can be used as a means for venting frustration because subordinates have relatively deplorable levels of retaliatory power and, therefore, serve as a scummyer- pretend target for venting behaviors than do employees in positions of greater hierarchical power.Victim presumption research as well swans this logic, indicating that displaced aggression is often targeted at those who are ineffectual or un booking to defend themselves, as is probable the case among subordinates who can be disciplined and terminated by their supervisors (e. g. , Aquino, 2000). This desire to vent frustrat ion at individuals who are unassociated with the initial con? ict, similar to the anecdotal whimsicality of kicking the dog after a bad day at work, can be understood in the context of displaced aggression. Coworker relationship con? ct is a potent source of stress and frustration (Thomas, 1976, 1992) and, because these are unpleasant, individuals are motivated to engage in head behaviors that willing come down their presence (Kemper, 1966). These emotion-driven coping behaviors can often take the form of hostile behaviors such as sabotage (Ambrose, Seabright &038 Schminke, 2002) and verbal assaults (Douglas &038 Martinko, 2001). Thus, coworker relationship con? ict may trigger aggressive behaviors (e. g. , yelling at others) that serve a coping function. Thomas (1976) celebrated, however, that the relative power of the parties to a con? ct in? uences the manner in which some(prenominal) parties will respond. When legitimate power levels are equal, as in the case of coworkers, hostile responses are plausibly to be met with retaliation although it is possible that the target of retaliation will respond with supererogatory hostility, creating an escalating cycle of con? ict. Subordinates, on the other hand, are often indisposed(p) to respond in kind to hostile supervisor behaviors for fear of losing their jokes. The fact that subordinates are not the cause of the supervisors frustration, that is, the frustration is caused by supervisors con? ct with their coworkers, may have little impact on the behavioral response if the behavior is largely motivated by emotion as contradictory to logic. That is, the desire to vent anger over coworker relationship con? ict using a safe target may override concerns that subordinates are not the logical targets for retaliation, given that they are not the cause of the con? ict. sanction on these arguments, we predict possibleness 1. Supervisors reports of coworker relationship con? ict are demonstrablely associated w ith abusive supervisory behaviors, as rated by subordinates. 2. 1. The moderating in? ence of LMX relationship quality Thomas (1976, 1992) argued that a conceptualization care for occurs between the con? ict experience and the behavioral outcome in which information is processed and behavioral options are evaluated. Although this cognitive process is likely to incorporate a widely range of information, we argue that an evaluation of relationships with subordinates is particularly relevant when behaviors toward these individuals are concerned. LMX theory suggests that the quality of leadermember relationships varies from richly to low (Dienesch &038 Liden, 1986 Graen &038 Uhl-Bien, 1995).Subordinates in uplifted quality exchanges are seen more favorably and recover advantages from their supervisors that their low quality LMX counterparts do not (e. g. , Liden, Sparrowe, &038 Wayne, 1997). As such, members in high quality exchanges receive preferential treatment from supervisors who are motivated to maintain these productive relationships. We see that supervisors who experience high levels of coworker relationship con? ict may force abusive toward subordinates, but will be selective in choosing which subordinates to target. Abusive supervisory behaviors generally have a negative effect on ictims levels of motive and attitudes toward their agate lines (e. g. , Duffy, Ganster &038 Pagon, 2002 Schat, Desmarais, &038 Kelloway, 2006). Although it can be argued that efficient managers would not want to risk these consequences with any employees, LMX theory would suggest that supervisors are especially motivated to maintain effective relationships with their high quality LMX subordinates. We argue, therefore, that supervisors who are thwarted by coworker relationship con? ict and who choose to react in an abusive manner will generally choose low quality LMX subordinates as their targets.Put divers(prenominal)ly, we post that when con? ict-driven squall oc curs, members in low quality exchanges will experience it more knock-down(prenominal)ly and frequently than members in high quality exchanges. Justice and victim hurry theories propose additional support for this argument (e. g. , Aquino, 2000 Bies &038 Moag, 1986). From a justice purview, rather of perceiving members of low quality LMX relationships as less risky targets for ridicule, it can also be argued that supervisors ? nd it easier to justify subvert toward these employees. Members of low quality exchanges are often characterized by relatively low performance levels (e. . , Deluga &038 Perry, 1994 Liden, Wayne, &038 Stilwell, 1993), and it susceptibility be argued that supervisors who use abusive behaviors to cope with relationship con? ict-driven frustration will feel most justi? ed in tensenessing on these employees. That is, supervisors major power rationalize the abuse by convincing themselves that relatively lowperforming subordinates in low quality LMX relat ionships deserve the abusive behavior. Victim precipitation research also suggests that several characteristics common among low quality LMX subordinates make them likely targets of abuse.Although incendiary and threatening behaviors have been linked to retaliatory aggression (e. g. , Aquino &038 Byron, 2002 Tepper, 2007), more great to our focus on leadermember relationships is the precipitation research indicating that abusive individuals often target those who are seen as weak or defenseless. Individuals who are hesitant to defend themselves or view themselves or their situations negatively calculate to draw the attention of aggressive individuals (Aquino, 2000 Olweus, 1978 Rahim, 1983 Tepper, 2007).As discussed above, the hierarchical nature of their relationship likely promotes the former tendency among subordinates, making them relatively safe targets for abuse. Members in low quality exchanges, in particular, business leader be unwilling to come along venture their rela tionship with their supervisors by retaliating against abuse and superpower also internalize their un preferable status, promoting the negative perceptions of their workplace competence and situation (e. g. , Ferris, Brown, &038 Heller, 2009) that can provoke victimization.Similar to our arguments concerning displaced abuse of subordinates, victim precipitation research suggests that these aggressors might wish to engage in abusive behavior as a means to K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 1013 preserve their social standing and bolster perceptions of their control over a situation (e. g. , Baumeister, Smart, &038 Boden, 1996 Felson, 1978). As such, this line of research reinforces the notion that subordinates might be targeted for displaced abuse and suggests that low quality LMX subordinates are especially likely to be viewed as vulnerable, and therefore relatively safe, targets.Based on these arguments, we predict dead reckoning 2. The relationship between supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict and member-reported abusive supervision is moderated by LMX, such that the positive relationship is stronger when LMX relationship quality is humiliate. 2. 2. Outcomes of abusive supervision The outcome portion of our conceptual model, shown in Fig. 1, examines the effects of abusive supervisory responses to coworker relationship con? ict on work effort and OCB. While we do not posit that abusive supervision is the only performer mediating the relationships between supervisors coworker relationship con? ct and these outcomes, we argue that abuse can serve as an explanatory mechanism and explain a relevant issue forth of edition in each consequence. Abusive supervision is a negative workplace event that, like con? ict, can have negative attitudinal and behavioral consequences (Tepper, 2007 Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, &038 Duffy, 2008 Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, &038 Carr, 2007). It has been argued that these outcomes are caused by the stress and emotional strain associated with abuse from individuals in a position of power (e. g. Duffy, Ganster &038 Pagon, 2002 Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter &038 Kacmar, 2007 Tepper, 2000). Further, Duffy, Ganster and Pagon (2002) pitch evidence suggesting that abuse promotes bony self-ef? cacy. As we discuss in the following sections, each of these consequences of abusive supervision can be logically linked to the outcomes depicted in Fig. 1. 2. 2. 1. Work effort Because abusive supervision can diminish victims con? dence in their abilities (Duffy, Ganster &038 Pagon, 2002), it follows that motivation to apply high levels of effort at work will likely decrease in response to abuse.Abusive supervisors, who by de? nition are consistent in their abuse (Tepper, 2000), might eventually wear employees down with a steady onslaught of aggressive behavior (e. g. , yelling, criticizing), reducing their con? dence and motivation. Similarly, it may be that over time abusive supervision promotes emotional exhaustion (Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter &038 Kacmar, 2007 Tepper, 2000), a nail down characterized by diminished emotional and physical coping abilities and closely associated with job burnout (Brewer &038 Shapard, 2004 Cropanzano, Rupp, &038 Byrne, 2003).Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter and Kacmar (2007) argued that this relationship was likely due to the tenacious assault on employees feelings and ef? cacy perceptions (Savicki &038 Cooley, 1983) associated with abusive supervision. When emotional exhaustion occurs, individuals essay diminished motivation and a trim down ability to handle stressful work events, promoting a reduction in work effort (Brewer &038 Shapard, 2004 Kahill, 1988 Leiter &038 Maslach, 1988).Using a distinct lens to view the abusework effort association, employees might also view abusive supervision as a form of mental contract breach, as subordinates generally do not expect to be ill-treat by those given the authority to superv ise them (Tepper, 2000). When employees perceive that a breach has taken place, they often feel less compelled to ful? ll their obligation to exert high levels of work effort (Harris, Kacmar &038 Zivnuska, 2007). 2. 2. 2. Citizenship behaviors The ? nal outcome depicted in Fig. 1 concerns the negative in? ence of coworker relationship con? ict-driven abuse and subordinates propensity to engage in OCB. This predicted relationship is based on research indicating that abusive supervision is associated with factor outs, including decreased organizational commitment, poor work-related attitudes, and injustice perceptions (Aryee, Chen, Sun &038 Debrah, 2007 Duffy, Ganster &038 Pagon, 2002 Schat, Desmarais, &038 Kelloway, 2006 Zellars, Tepper &038 Duffy, 2002), that can contain citizenship behaviors (Ambrose, Seabright &038 Schminke, 2002 Zellars, Tepper &038 Duffy, 2002).Victims of abusive supervision often feel that they have been treated unjustly (Tepper, 2000), a perception that is a ssociated with reduced levels of OCB (Moorman, 1991). As Judge, Scott, and Ilies (2006) argued, unjust treatment is likely to qualify as a negative affective event and can therefore provoke a retaliatory behavioral response. One such response could logically be the withholding of citizenship behaviors, which are not a requirement of the job and could trial run counter to the terminal of retaliation by making the supervisors job easier (e. g. , Zellars, Tepper &038 Duffy, 2002).In support of this debate, additional research indicates that abusive supervision motivates retaliatory behaviors such as workplace deviance and aggression that run contrary to the notion of citizenship behavior (Dupre, Inness, Connelly, Barling, &038 Hoption, 2006 Schaubhut, Adams, &038 Jex, 2004). Based on these arguments, we predict shot 3. Abusive supervision is negatively related to supervisor reports of subordinate work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors. 2. 3. The mediating role of abus ive supervision We have argued that relationship con? ct between supervisors and their coworkers is associated with abusive supervisory behaviors, and that such behaviors have negative deductive reasonings for victims levels of work effort and OCB. Implicit in this line of causal agencying is the notion that coworker relationship con? ict at the supervisor level is ultimately associated with decreased levels of 1014 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 effort and OCB at the subordinate level, and that abusive supervision acts a mediator between these versatiles. More speci? ally, the negative effects of supervisors relationship con? ict with their coworkers are predicted to manifest themselves in the form of abusive behaviors that negatively affect employees attitudes and behaviors, promoting negative subordinate outcomes. Thus, maculation a relationship between a supervisors level of coworker relationship con? ict and subordinates levels of effort a nd OCB may seem somewhat abstract, we suggest that coworker relationship con? ict-driven abusive supervision leaves an intermediary link between these shiftings.Based on these arguments, we predict Hypothesis 4. Abusive supervision mediates the negative relationships between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors. 3. Method 3. 1. savors and procedures The samples utilized in this study were from two different divisions of a state government. The division in ensample 1 was responsible for handling disease related issues (e. g. , STDs, immunizations, tuberculosis), whereas the division in audition 2 handled environmental health related issues (e. g. , radiation, clean water).To begin the entropy collection efforts, the director of each division sent an email to all employees in their branch. The email informed the potential respondents of the studys purpose, that participation was voluntary, and that the results would be con? dential. aft(prenominal) this email, the researchers sent a personalized message again explaining the purpose of the assess, the con? dentiality of responses, and a web link to the survey. Respondents were asked to complete the survey during the close month. Respondents were required to provide their supervisors name to match supervisorsubordinate responses.At the alike(p) time, supervisors were asked to provide ratings on each of their direct reports. In model 1, eliminating responses with wanting(p) data or those that were unable to be matched (i. e. , we received a subordinate response, but not a matching supervisor response) resulted in a sample size of 121 (58% response rate). Subordinates were 68% female, the fair age was 41. 68 years, the bonny job advance was 3. 38 years, and their average organizational term of office was 5. 22 years. In total, 28 supervisors provided ratings, resulting in an average of 4. 32 ratings per supervisor.For the supervisor s, the demographic breakdown was 57% female, the average age was 47. 91 years, the average job advance was 4. 79 years, and their average organizational tenure was 7. 73 years. After the elimination of unusable responses in adjudicate 2, our usable sample size was 134 (64% response rate). Participants in Sample 2 were 60% male, had an average age of 46. 04 years, average job tenure of 7. 04 years, and average organizational tenure of 11. 51 years. Forty- iv supervisors provided ratings, which resulted in an average of 3. 05 ratings per supervisor.The demographic breakdown for the supervisors was 75% male, an average age of 49. 29 years, average job tenure of 9. 64 years, and average organizational tenure of 16. 26 years. 3. 2. Measures Unless otherwise noted, a 5-point Likert surmount leaf (anchors strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)) was used for all survey items. Scales were coded with high values representing high levels of the constructs. 3. 3. Subordinate measures 3 . 3. 1. Abusive supervision In some(prenominal)(prenominal) samples abusive supervision was measured with six items from Teppers (2000) measure.We were unable to use the amply 15-item measure due to management concerns about the surveys overall length. Thus, we had experts in the field look at the content of each of the items, and we chose 6 items that best captured the well(p) range of abusive supervisory behaviors. The items we chose were My supervisor makes negative comments about me to others, My supervisor gives me the silent treatment, My supervisor expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for some other reason, My supervisor is rude to me, My supervisor breaks promises he/she makes, and My supervisor puts me down in front of others. In an effort to establish the validity of our shortened home, we compared our reduced scale to the full moon measure using the data from the Tepper (2000) article. 1 We appoint that the full 15-item scale was correlated with our 6-item sc ale at . 96. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 90 for Sample 1 and . 92 for Sample 2. 3. 3. 2. Leadermember exchange We used Liden and Maslyns (1998) 12-item leadermember exchange multidimensional scale to measure exchange quality in both samples. A sample item include My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 94 for Sample 1 and . 92 for Sample 2. 1 We thank Ben Tepper for allowing us to use his pilot program data for this correlation. K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 1015 3. 4. Supervisor measures 3. 4. 1. Coworker relationship con? ict In both samples supervisors rated their relationship con? icts with their coworkers using the 4-item Jehn (1995) scale. A sample item included Is there tension among your coworkers? These questions were included in a section of the survey here the supervisors were answering questions about their attitudes, behaviors, and rel ationships with their coworkers. This section was separate from the section where supervisors commented on their subordinates, thus making it clear that these relationship con? ict questions were focused on coworkers at their level in the organization (e. g. , managers relationship con? icts with other managers). The response scale for this construct was Not at all (1) to To a very great extent (5). The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 95 for Sample 1 and . 94 for Sample 2. 3. 4. 2.Work effort In both samples supervisors rated subordinates work effort using Brown and Leighs (1996) 5-item scale. A sample item was When theres a job to be done, this subordinate devotes all his/her button to getting it done. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 93 for Sample 1 and . 94 for Sample 2. 3. 4. 3. organizational citizenship behaviors Supervisors responded to Settoon and Mossholders (2002) 6-item scale to measure subordinate task-focused OCB in both samples. A sample item was This subor dinate assists coworkers with heavy work hemorrhoid even though it is not part of the job. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 84 for Sample 1 and . 81 for Sample 2. 3. 5. Control variables We controlled for four variables, all measured from the subordinate, in an effort to minimize potentially spurious relationships. The variables we controlled for were age (measured in years), job tenure (measured in months), organizational tenure (measured in months), and supervisorsubordinate relationship tenure (measured in months). 3. 6. Analytical draw near In both samples in this study, supervisors coworker relationship con? ict responses were used as prognosticators of subordinate outcomes (i. . , cross-level main effect). Thus, a single supervisor coworker relationship con? ict rating was used as the predictor variable for multiple subordinates. As a result, for these variables there was no within-supervisor difference and all of the variance was between supervisors (i. e. , ICCs wer e 1. 00). Additionally, supervisors provided ratings on certain scales (e. g. , work effort and OCB) for multiple subordinates, thus resulting in a supervisor effect (e. g. , ICC1s for OCB of . 11 in sample 1 and . 13 and sample 2, and ICC2s of . 48 in sample 1 and . 51 in sample 2).To account for the supervisor-level effect in our data, hierarchical analogue modeling (HLM Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, &038 Congdon, 2004) with grand-mean centering was used to carry out our analyses. In the HLM analyses involving supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, this variable was included as a aim 2 variable (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong &038 Congdon, 2004). To test Hypotheses 12, there were four steps. In the ? rst step, we entered the four control variables. In the second step we entered the Level 2 variable of supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, and it was here that we tested Hypothesis 1.In the third step, we entered the Level 1 moderator variable, LMX. In the fourth step, w e entered the cross-level interaction term formed between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and LMX. It was in this step that we tested Hypothesis 2. To test the abusive supervision-outcome and mediation hypotheses (3 and 4), we conducted world-beater and Kennys (1986) threestep procedure. The HLM equations are available from the ? rst author request. 4. Results The means, amount deviations, and correlation matrix for the variables in this study are provided in skirt 1 for Sample 1 and remit 2 for Sample 2.In both samples abusive supervision was signi? cantly correlated with supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict, as well as our dependent variables. Given that a few of the correlations between our focal variables were high, we elected to run a series of con? rmatory factor analyses (CFA) on the scales used in our study to ensure that they were independent and that the items produced the anticipate factor structures. These analyses were run on both sa mples separately. To conduct our CFAs, we used LISREL 8. 80, a covariance matrix as input, and a maximum-likelihood estimation.We elected to conduct our CFA analyses using involved indicators rather than items due to the large number of items and our moderate sample sizes. To bring on our composite indicators, we assigned items based on factor loadings from an exploratory factor analysis (Bagozzi &038 Heatherton, 1994 Eddleston, Viega, &038 Powell, 2006). Speci? cally, for our four-item scales we combined the two items with the highest and utmost factor loadings to the ? rst indicator and the rest two items to the second indicator. For the ? ve-item scales we created the ? st indicator as described above and included the remaining three items on the second indicator. For our six-item scale we paired the highest and lowest loading item to create the ? rst indicator and then repeated this process for the remaining two indicators. Finally, for the LMX scale we used the four subscal es (loyalty, contribution, professional valuate, and affect) as composite indicators. Our approach resulted in 15 indicators for our 6 scales. 1016 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 display board 1 means, beat deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables in Sample 1.Variable 1. Abusive supervision 2. Sup. coworker con? ict 3. Leadermember exchange (LMX) 4. Work effort 5. OCB 6. LMX affect 7. LMX contribution 8. LMX loyalty 9. LMX professional respect 10. epoch 11. mull over tenure 12. Organizational tenure 13. Relationship tenure Mean 1. 31 3. 03 3. 92 4. 03 3. 87 3. 86 4. 10 3. 69 4. 03 41. 68 3. 38 5. 22 1. 99 SD . 57 1. 02 . 77 . 79 . 72 . 97 . 68 . 84 1. 09 11. 1 3. 88 5. 23 2. 02 1 . 77 . 21? ? . 67?? ? . 27?? ? . 29?? .60?? .36?? .69?? .62?? .10 . 10 . 05 . 25?? 2 . 95 ? .11 ? .20? ? . 18? ? . 05 . 04 . 19? ? . 14 . 01 . 23? .01 . 17 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .76 . 3?? .35?? .91?? .77?? .83?? .90?? ? . 00 . 05 . 08 ? .00 .86 . 40?? .28?? .22? .35?? .28?? .03 ? .00 . 10 . 00 .65 . 27?? .22? .33?? .35?? .01 ? .03 . 05 . 12 .92 . 62?? .68?? .79?? ? . 02 . 11 . 11 . 04 .75 . 56?? .58?? .11 . 05 . 11 . 04 .74 . 64?? ? . 04 ? .01 . 05 ? .11 .94 ? .03 . 02 . 01 . 02 . 35?? .39?? .26?? . 69?? .48?? . 49?? Note Values in italics on the diagonal are the unbent root of the average variance explained which essential be larger than all zero-order correlations in the row and column in which they appear to demonstrate discriminant validity (Fornell &038 Larcker, 1981).N = 121. ? p b . 05. ?? p b . 01. We began by estimating a six-factor solution, with each factor representing a scale in our study. Fit indices, shown in card 3, indicate that the six-factor model ? t the data. To curse that the six-factor structure was the best representation of our data, we estimated three secondary models and compared them to our baseline model via chi-square difference tests. The alternating(a) models estimated included two ? ve-f actor models and a unidimensional model. The receipts(a) models were created by cartel scales that had strong correlations to form a larger factor.The ? rst alternative model combined abusive supervision and LMX into one factor while the second combined OCB and work effort. A description of each alternative model and the CFA results are offered in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the chi-square difference test results support the six-factor structure as originally designed. To further explore the discriminant validity of our scales we followed the procedure outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981) and calculated the square root of the average variance explained for each of the scales in our study.This value, which we present on the diagonal in Tables 1 and 2, represents the variance accounted for by the items that compose the scale. To demonstrate discriminant validity, this value moldiness exceed the corresponding latent variable correlations in the same row and column. If this condi tion is met, then we have evidence that the variance shared between any two constructs is less than the average variance explained by the items that compose the scale (i. e. , discriminant validity). As shown in Tables 1 and 2, this condition is met for all of the scales used in our study.The HLM results predicting abusive supervision are shown in Tables 4 (for Sample 1) and 5 (for Sample 2) and the HLM results investigating abusive supervision as a mediator and/or predictor are provided in Tables 6 and 7. First describing our interaction results in Table 4, step 1 reveals that relationship tenure (? = . 08, p b . 05) was the only control variable signi? cantly associated with abusive supervision. blackguard 2 shows that supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict are positively and signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 09, p b . 05).This result provides support for Hypothesis 1 in Sample 1. pace 3 in this analysis shows that LMX was negatively associated wi th abusive supervision (? = ?. 48, p b . 01). Finally, step 4 shows that the interaction term between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and LMX was negatively and signi? cantly related to abusive Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables in Sample 2. Variable 1. Abusive supervision 2. Sup. coworker con? ict 3. LMX12 (overall) 4. Work effort 5. OCB 6. LMX affect 7. LMX contribution 8. LMX loyalty 9.LMX professional respect 10. get along 11. Job tenure 12. Organizational tenure 13. Relationship tenure Mean 1. 32 2. 42 4. 04 4. 31 4. 31 4. 04 4. 15 3. 78 4. 19 45. 86 6. 55 11. 16 6. 08 SD . 58 . 76 . 60 . 73 . 67 . 78 . 56 . 78 . 95 6. 89 2. 66 4. 37 2. 12 1 . 92 . 15? ? . 55?? ? . 26?? ? . 21? ? . 53?? .05 ? .52?? ? . 57?? .04 . 02 . 01 ? .01 2 . 94 ? .04 ? .03 ? .19? ? . 03 ? .06 ? .02 ? .02 ? .15 ? .09 ? .07 . 00 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .92 . 09 . 05 . 84?? .53?? .83?? .86?? ? . 07 . 08 . 05 . 07 .87 . 72?? ? . 01 ? .03 . 18? .11 ? .03 ? .00 . 03 ? .02 .85 . 01 ? .13 . 09 . 13 ? .13 . 1 ? .05 . 07 .88 . 28?? .56?? .69?? ? . 10 . 05 ? .03 . 00 .71 . 38?? .22? .08 . 16* . 18? .15 .84 . 59?? ? . 08 . 03 . 03 . 01 .95 ? .06 . 04 . 01 . 08 . 14 . 23?? .18? . 61?? .27?? . 26?? Note Values in italics on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance explained which moldiness be larger than all zero-order correlations in the row and column in which they appear to demonstrate discriminant validity (Fornell &038 Larcker, 1981). N = 134. ? p b . 05. ?? p b . 01. K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 Table 3 preference model test results.Model Sample 1 (N = 121) baseline 6-factor model 5-factor combining abuse and LMX 5-factor combining work effort and OCB 1-factor Sample 2 (N = 134) Baseline 6-factor model 5-factor combining abuse and LMX 5-factor combining work effort and OCB 1-factor X2 102 196 127 706 df 75 80 80 90 X2diff dfdiff CFI . 98 . 95 . 97 . 59 NFI . 95 . 91 . 94 . 57 1017 RMSEA . 048 . 093 . 059 . 200 94??? 25??? 604??? 5 5 15 112 276 224 1177 75 80 80 90 164??? 112??? 1065??? 5 5 15 .98 . 93 . 93 . 47 .94 . 89 . 89 . 46 .056 . 125 . 107 . 280 Note Abuse = abusive supervision, LMX = leadermember exchange, OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. ?? p b . 001. supervision (? = ?. 12, p b . 01). Overall, the results in Table 5 (Sample 2) are similar. In step 1 none of the control variables were signi? cantly associated with the outcome, but in step 2, supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict were positively and signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 11, p b . 05), again supporting Hypothesis 1. bar 3 in Table 5 shows that LMX was negatively associated with abusive supervision (? = ?. 54, p b . 01). In the ? nal step, the supervisor reported coworker relationship con? ict ? LMX interaction term was negatively and signi? antly related to abusive supervision (? = ? .29, p b . 05). To determine support for our inte raction dead reckoning, we graphed the two signi? cant moderating effects. We did so by plotting two faces, one at one standard deviation below and one at one standard deviation above the mean (Stone &038 Hollenbeck, 1989). Figs. 2 (for Sample 1) and 3 (for Sample 2) illustrate the signi? cant interactions and show that the positive relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision were stronger when LMX relationship quality was lower.Additionally, we calculated simple slopes for each of our interactions. In sample 1, we imbed that the slope of the low LMX line was signi? cant (t = 2. 00, p b . 05), whereas the slope of the high LMX line was not signi? cant. Similar to sample 1, in sample 2 the slope of the low LMX was signi? cant (t = 2. 11, p b . 05), but the slope of the high LMX line was not signi? cant. In total, these results provide support for Hypothesis 2 in both samples. Tables 6 and 7 provide the results of our mediation analyses. First discussing the results from Sample 1 shown in Table 6, supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ct was signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 09, p b . 05) (which ful? lls one of Baron and Kennys (1986) mediation requirements) and to OCB (? = ? .08, p b . 10) and work effort (? = ?. 14, p b . 05) (ful? lling another mediation requirement). Steps 2c and 3c show that when both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are entered into the equation, the coworker relationship con? ict variable is no longer signi? cant. In particular, the gammas for supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict predicting OCB dropped from ?. 08 to ?. 6 and for predicting work effort dropped from ?. 14 to ? .11. However, abusive supervision is signi? cantly and positively related to OCB (? = ?. 37, p b . 01) and signi? cantly and negatively related to work effort (? = ?. 27, p b . 05). Thus, Hypothesis 3 is back up in Sample 1. I n terms of the mediation results, the results from Baron and Kennys (1986) three-step procedure show that abusive supervision fully mediated the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and OCB and partially mediated the relationship with work effort. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported in Sample 1.Table 4 Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting abusive supervision in Sample 1. Step 1 Control variables Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure nonparasitic variable Sup-rated coworker con? ict (A) Moderator LMX (B) Interaction term A? B ? R2 . 00 . 00 ? .01 . 08? Step 2 . 00 ? .00 ? .01 . 07 . 09? Step 3 . 00 . 00 ? .00 . 07? .05? ? . 48?? Step 4 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 . 06? .05 ? .46?? ? . 12?? .02 .02 .02 .45 Note Sup-rated coworker con? ict = supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, LMX = leadermember exchange. N = 121. ? p b . 05. ?? p b . 01. 018 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 Table 5 Hierarchi cal linear modeling results predicting abusive supervision in Sample 2. Step 1 Control variables Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Independent variable Sup-rated coworker con? ict (A) Moderator LMX (B) Interaction term A? B ? R2 . 00 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 Step 2 . 01 .00 ? .00 ? .00 . 11? Step 3 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 . 00 . 09? ? . 54?? Step 4 . 00 . 00 ? .00 . 00 . 13? ? . 55?? ? . 29?? .05 .01 .01 .35 Note Sup-rated coworker con? ict = supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ct, LMX = leadermember exchange. N = 134. ? p b . 05. ?? p b . 01. close we turn to the HLM results presented for Sample 2 in Table 7. This table shows that supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict was signi? cantly related to abusive supervision in step 1b (which passes Baron and Kennys (1986) ? rst step) and OCB (in step 2b), but not work effort (in step 3b). These results pass the ? rst two steps for mediation for OCB, but not work effort. Table 7 also reveals that abusive superv ision is negatively and signi? cantly related to OCB (? = ?. 26, p b . 05) in step 2c, and signi? antly and negatively related to work effort (? = ?. 39, p b . 01) in step 3c. Thus, Hypothesis 3, which was supported in Sample 1, is also supported in Sample 2. Step 2c shows that when both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are entered into the equation, the coworker relationship con? ict variable is no longer a signi? cant predictor of OCB. In terms of the mediation results, the results from Baron and Kennys (1986) three-step procedure show that abusive supervision mediated the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ct and OCB, but not work effort. Thus, Hypothesis 4, which was supported for both dependent variables in Sample 1, was only supported for OCB in Sample 2. 5. word of honor The purpose of this study was to further our knowledge of the predictors and outcomes of abusive supervision. We pursued this goal by examining supervisor reports of relationship con? ict with their coworkers as a predictor of subordinate-rated abusive supervision, and LMX quality as a situational variable in? uencing this relationship. Additionally, we examined the outcomes of supervisor-rated OCB nd work effort and found that abusive supervision fully mediated the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and OCB in both samples and the outcomes of work effort in one sample. Returning to our theoretical arguments, we found that displaced aggression and LMX theories provide useful lenses for discussing predictors and outcomes of abusive supervision. Coworker relationship con? ict at any level is a potent source of stress and frustration as it impedes the achievement of goals and the attainment of desired outcomes (e. g. , Thomas, 1976).Like past abusive supervision research (Tepper, Duffy, Henle &038 Lambert, 2006), our results suggest that some supervisors will resort to abusive behaviors against their employees as a means of coping with these consequences. This study advances real research by explicitly examining situations where subordinates are not the logical target of retaliation (i. e. , they are not the source of the con? ict). Because subordinates are an easy and accessible target, however, having less power and less of an ability to retaliate, they make relatively safe candidates for abuse from frustrated supervisors.Table 6 Hierarchical linear modeling mediation results in Sample 1. DV = abusive supervision Step 1a Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision Note OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. N = 121. ? p b . 05. ?? p b . 01. .00 . 00 ? .01 . 08? Step 1b . 00 ? .00 ? .01 . 07 . 09? Step 2a . 00 ? .02 . 00 . 05 DV = OCB DV = work effort Step 2b . 00 ? .01 ? .00 . 05 ? .08+ Step 2c . 00 ? .01 ? .00 . 07 ? .06 ? .27? Step 3a ? .00 ? .02 . 02 . 00 Step 2b ? .00 ? .01 . 02 . 01 ? .14? Step 3c . 0 ? .01 . 01 . 04 . 11 ? .37?? K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 Table 7 Hierarchical linear modeling mediation results in Sample 2. DV = abusive supervision Step 1a Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision Note OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. N = 134. ? p b . 05. ?? p b . 01. .00 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 Step 1b . 01 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 . 11? Step 2a ? .01 ? .00 . 00 . 00 DV = OCB DV = work effort 1019 Step 2b ? .01 ? .00 . 00 . 00 ? .13? Step 2c ? .01 . 0 ? .00 . 00 ? .09 ? .26? Step 3a ? .00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 Step 3b ? .00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 ? .03 Step 3c . 00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 . 02 ? .39?? Additionally, when supervisors experience coworker relationship con? ict, our results indicate that they are most likely to abuse subordinates with whom they have low quality LMX relationships. This ? nding appears to support our argument that supervisors will focus their abusive behaviors on those employees in low quality exchanges in order to screen their high quality relationships from the detrimental effects of abusive supervision.In this way, supervisors may reason that abusive behaviors allow them to vent frustration while minimizing the negative in? uence of this coping behavior on their most valued employees. Naturally, there are ? aws in this method of coping, most notably that the performance levels of abused employees will likely suffer, causing added strain and frustration for other employees and the supervisors themselves. Among supervisors who make the subtle choice to cope through abuse, however, it appears that employees in low-quality relationships are the most likely targets.We also extended abusive supervision research with our ? ndings indicating that this variable is related to the outcomes of OCB and work effort. These ? ndings are noteworthy as they extend the nomological network of outcomes relat ed to abusive supervision, and because both outcomes were supervisor-rated, which helps to minimize common source bias concerns (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &038 Podsakoff, 2003). Additionally, in sample 1 we found that abusive supervision served as an intermediary mechanism explaining the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ct and both consequences examined, and that there was also mediation on the outcome of OCB in sample 2. These results are important as they begin to answer the questions related to how situational supervisor variables, such as coworker relationship con? ict, ultimately are showd into subordinate outcomes. Surprisingly, we did not ? nd support for the work effort mediation hypothesis in Sample 2. A post hoc explanation for these insigni? cant ? ndings may relate to the demographic composition of the samples. Sample 2 was different from Sample 1 for both subordinates and supervisors.It was primarily male, the average age was hig h, and average job and organizational tenure were both more than double (except for supervisor job tenure) those in the ? rst sample. Although it is possible to deduce explanations as to how these differences might have in? uenced our results, such atheoretical logic would be to a fault speculative. Thus, as we suggest below, we advance replicative research in additional samples that would allow for a more taxonomic assessment of these, or other, sample-speci? c characteristics. 5. 1. Contributions These ? dings make several contributions to the extant research on abusive supervision and LMX relationships. First, they build support for the notion of displaced abusive supervision and undermine a potential alternative explanation. In Teppers (2007) reappraisal of abusive supervision literature, he concluded that supervisors perceptions of organization-level factors, such as Fig. 2. hash out effect of LMX on the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision in Sample 1. 1020 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023Fig. 3. moderate effect of LMX on the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision in Sample 2. injustice and contract violation, can trigger abuse toward individual targets (i. e. , subordinates). He argued that this phenomenon might be explained by displaced aggression logic, in that subordinates serve as safe abuse targets even if the abuse is unlikely to resolve the perceptions triggering the desire to be abusive. An alternative, although somewhat tenuous, explanation is that these negative perceptions in? ence animosity toward the overall organization and that supervisors justify the abuse of subordinates who are seen as complicit in the perceived negative aspects of the organization. Our ? ndings suggest that this alternative primer of justi? cation would not adequately explain displaced abusive supervision. Looking beyond infer organizational perceptions, we found that even frustration stemming from speci? c, identi? able non-subordinate sources (i. e. , supervisors coworkers) might translate into abuse toward subordinates.This suggests that abusive supervision may serve as a self-defeating coping mechanism (e. g. , Baumeister &038 Scher, 1988), akin to mechanisms such as problem drinking and procrastination, in that it seeks short-term stress-reduction (e. g. , through emotional venting) in a harmful way that does not address the true source of the inherent problem (e. g. , con? ict with peers). We also expand on Teppers conclusion, again stemming from his 2007 come off of abusive supervision research, that subordinate characteristics in? uence the likelihood that they will experience abuse.As in the present study, Tepper (2007) cited victimization research to argue that subordinates who appear overly provocative or passive put themselves at a heightened risk for abuse. Expanding on the latter id ea, we argued and spyd that employees in low quality LMX relationships, who we expect demonstrate relatively high levels of passivity and vulnerability, report higher levels of abuse. This suggests that kind of of identifying each of the potential subordinate characteristics that can incite abuse, a more parsimonious approach might be to look at immense relationship variables such as LMX that can be viewed as re? cting the aggregate impact of these individual characteristics. This conclusion also adds to LMX research by revealing an additional consequence of low-quality LMX relationships. In addition to the wide corpse of research showing that low-quality LMX subordinates experience outcomes such as fewer rewards, lower resource levels, and reduced job satisfaction (e. g. , Liden, Sparrowe &038 Wayne, 1997), this study suggests a more serious potential consequence in the form of victimization by abusive supervisors.Additionally, our results, and the fact that most were replicat ed across the two samples, demonstrate the utility of multi-level models for predicting employee consequences of abusive supervision. Abusive supervision is an inherently multi-level phenomenon and this study shows that insights into some causes of abuse, such as con? ict levels between supervisors, exist that cannot be assessed from subordinate self-reports. Similarly, it identi? es supervisor-rated subordinate outcomes of abusive supervision (effort levels and OCB) that are dif? cult to assess with self-reports due to social desirability and common source bias concerns.Further, these supervisor-rated effects provide some indication that abusive supervisors are at least indirectly aware of the selfdefeating consequences of abuse. Our data do not tell us whether supervisors consciously related their abuse to lower levels of employee effort and citizenship behavior. Their awareness of lower levels among the abused subordinates, however, suggests that a degree of denial would be neces sary for the supervisors to overlook these causeeffect relationships. Although existing research has not, to our knowledge, explicitly stated that supervisors are asleep of the consequences of abusive behavior, this ? ding suggests that prox research on preventing abuse might bene? t from focusing not on why supervisors view the behavior as acceptable, but why they engage in it despite an unembellished awareness of these consequences. 5. 2. Limitations In addition to the aforementioned strengths and contributions, there are terminal points that we must acknowledge to properly interpret the studys results. First we acknowledge that the theoretical manakin we have developed is not the only logical explanation for the hypothesized and observed relationships.For example, it is plausible that the link between supervisors coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision is less cognitive than we have argued. Instead of selectively choosing subordinates as a low-risk target for v enting frustration, it might be that some supervisors simply give traits that predispose K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 1021 them toward con? ict and abusive behaviors (with higher levels of abuse directed at low quality members). Examples of such traits might include negative affectivity or hostile attribution styles (Douglas &038 Martinko, 2001).An investigation of these possibilities would be useful in forming a more comprehensive understanding of the trial-and-error relationships observed in the present study. In terms of methodological limitations, survey length constraints required us to use a reduced reading material of the abusive supervision scale. Even though we chose items that tapped into the full set of behaviors and found an extremely high correlation between our shortened measure and the full scale, this may still be viewed as a limitation. other limitation is that we were unable to measure causality.Thus, there is the potential that our relationships actually have stamp out causality or that variables predict each other in a recursive manner. This is particularly true regarding the association between LMX perceptions and abusive supervision. Our results suggest that supervisors are more abusive toward some employees than others and that this difference is associated with variations in subordinates LMX advance. It can be argued, and is indeed very likely, that an abused employee would report lower LMX scores because of the abuse.The ? nding that supervisors are selective in their abuse targets suggests that some criterion is evaluated ahead targets are chosen and we have argued that preexisting LMX relationship qualities could serve as this criterion. Our design does not allow us to make this claim de? nitively, however. Similarly, it may be that abusive supervision is not the predictor of work effort, but that insuf? cient effort by subordinates promotes higher levels of abusive supervision or that both variables in? uence each other in a cyclical manner.We are particularly sensitive to the argument that there may be a feedback loop between abusive supervision and the outcome variables, such that abuse reduces subordinates effort and citizenship levels, and this reduction provokes further abuse, although the design of the study did not allow us to test this possibility. Along a similar line, it could be that abusive supervision toward subordinates is actually the cause of the supervisors con? ict among peers. We hope that future studies will be designed to better answer these causality questions.There are also limitations associated with the sampling of public, white-collar organizations. Different organizations (e. g. , private, military, blue-collar) have different rules and norms governing behavior and it is likely that the abusive supervisory behaviors studied would be more or less permissible, and therefore more or less common, in different organizational settings. 5. 3. Dire ctions for future research This studys ? ndings suggest a number of directions for future research. First, we hope future researchers will examine our hypotheses in other, more divers(a) samples.Although we examined two separate organizations, it is necessary to examine additional samples to better establish the generalizability or boundary conditions of our relationships. A second suggestion is to examine the relationships in this study with a longitudinal research design. The extant research on abusive supervision, including this study, has primarily relied on cross-sectional designs. Although telling, these studies leave out situations and behaviors that impact subordinates over time. In the case of both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ct and abusive supervision, it may be that supervisors and subordinates learn to cope with these situations, and become accustomed to them. Conversely, it could be that these situations and behaviors become worse as they accumulat e over time (Harris, Kacmar, &038 Witt, 2005) as argued by Tepper (2000) and as noted in our discussion of cyclical relationships between abuse and behavioral outcomes in the previous section. Another avenue for future research is to conduct additional multi-level investigations to determine how supervisor experiences and situations impact their subordinates.In this study we examined supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict, but it also would be interesting to investigate the effect of supervisors supervisor relationship con? ict, abusive supervision, LMX, team member exchange, and perceived organizational support (Erdogan &038 Enders, 2007 Tangirala, Green, &038 Ramanujam, 2007) as these variables are likely to have trickle-down effects on employee outcomes. Additionally, the aforementioned implication that supervisors might be aware of the consequences of abusive supervision suggests that a multilevel, or at least supervisor-level, focus on understanding the justi? ati on process might provide insight into interventions for preventing such behavior. It would also be interesting to investigate personality characteristics, such as Machiavellianism, entitlement, and narcissism, of supervisors and subordinates and how these variables are related to abuse (Harvey &038 Harris, 2010 Kiazad, Restubog, Zagenczyk, Kiewitz, &038 Tang, 2010). Finally, we examined LMX from the perspective of the member, but it would be insightful to investigate leader reports of the LMX quality with their subordinates and how this rating interacts with supervisor coworker con? ict. 5. 4. Practical implications Before discussing speci? practical implications from this study, it should be noted that the overarching implication from this and most of the existing body of research on abusive supervision is that abusive supervision is detrimental to all parties. It is stressful for victims and hurts organizational performance and a supervisors effectiveness by negatively affecting d esirable outcomes (see Tepper, 2007) such as increased levels of effort and OCB. Employees may feel fright and afraid to report the behavior of abusive supervisors, however, making it dif? cult for organizational leaders to identify and eliminate these abusive managers.Because of the dif? culty in reducing existing levels of abuse, preventative techniques for reducing the likelihood of abusive supervision are advisable. The results of this study suggest that one such technique is for organizational leaders to observe and mediate con? icts between supervisory employees, thereby removing an antecedent of abusive behaviors. Additionally, because the supervisors in our study were more likely to abuse employees with whom they shared low-quality relationships, an organization-wide focus on the development of strong leadermember relationships might foster a climate where there are few 022 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 desirable targets for abuse. We ack nowledge that neither of these suggestions (i. e. , mediating supervisor con? icts and promoting strong leadermember relationships) are simple tasks. We suggest, however, that a continuous focus on these goals would consume far less time and energy than traffic with the consequences of abusive supervision. 6

Bread of the World

Our nations dedication in eradicating poverty has and so created a great impact in the countrys image. The humanitarian programs of the government has effectively help millions of families survive the test of poverty. In addition, the inappropriate assistance has help alleviate the economy of the other countries drowned in poverty. But, at present, poverty is still prevalent in the poor continents like Africa. inadequacy of food has killed thousands of lives of young Africans. Due to the continuous poverty, the hope for development may never be realized in some poor countries.This as well as proves that the foreign aid being afforded by the country is not enough. Hence, this earn asks your good office to initiate a change of the countrys foreign aid programs and policies. Time for action should be instigated now. By your help, enthrall coordinate with your fellow solons to include poverty among the priorities of the country. By enhancing our programs in alleviating poverty, m illions of lives would be saved and changed. The period for fighting poverty should be now and be continued until a shadow of it will be eradicated.At the same time, the sparing status of the country would eventually be build and the confidence of the masses in their government would be strengthened. Let the Congress start reviving foreign aid programs and save many children from death caused by hunger. Sincerely, (Your Name) (Address) name and address Bread for the universe of discourse & Bread for the World Institute. (2008). Bread for the World Have Faith End Hunger. Retrieved March 20, 2009, from http//www. bread. org/page. jsp? itemID=28131907

Thoughts on Love Dating and Marriage

There atomic number 18 some(prenominal) distinct thoughts about dating, passionateness and labor union. I had the pleasure of interviewing six co-workers from different lifestyle regarding their views on these matters. I pull up stakes comp be their thoughts with the theories of venerate and attachment. The social science theories that help us understand the comp championnts and processes of love include attachment hypothesis, Reisss round conjecture of love, Sternbergs triangular theory of love, Lees research on the styles of loving, and exchange theories.Many plenty perceive marriage as an alpha occasion in their bouncings, while others take marriage for granted and non that serious. Do race just hate distributively other aft(prenominal) a while? What happens when the vows argon in place, do people depart too relax into their real selves? Or is it just unrealistic straighta focus? Dan a zippy whiteness 43 yr. old male feels that marriage is fading away. He does nt know if people understand what they be entering into, rather it is love or lust. Dan feels that these idealistic dreams often wipe people off of their feet and then in a few eld or less Reality Hits Ouch Marriage is no longer a bringing together of a family, business or wealth. It is dressually put up on this strange c at one prison termpt called love and with the concept of family to some people. Families are not the stable, strong and the dominant group that is shaping the young. Families are tottering and weak however bonds are weaker. As far as Gay marriages goes Dan feels that it should be legal and that it should not be called or treated and different than a marriage. stock-still so though the church doesnt rule the humans anymore Dan feels that marriage should be a legal coupling and not a religious coupling.Then he yelled WHY tireT PEOPLE STOP SAYING MARRIAGE IS SOME unnameable INSTITUTION THAT CANNOT BE DARKENED BY THE EVIL GAYS. WITH THE DIVORCE post T HAT WE HAVE, the agreement that marriage is some sacred institution just peal hollow. Dan feels that an set marriage seems to last longer than marriage of choice and that people seem to grow to love from for each one one other that are gift together by religion or family. However he get out never support the mandating of an arranged marriage. Dan was heartbroken over premarital brace due to people not be responsible and protecting themselves.It saddened him to recall about the many unwanted babies and the quantity of single mothers that we progress to in the economy today. These children and mothers are really being robbed of the Ameri burn Dream. Dan believes that some people can chance upon love on the net the same way that his mom found her soul mate at that place. He believes that anyone should be happy. undermentioned I interviewed three Caucasian women, Marcie a29yr old woman divorced once and remarital again with one child by the second marriage. Nikki, divorce double and she is single mother of two with one child that diagnosed as being autistic.Then there is Kaitlyn a 22yr old white bi get offual lady. Even though these women came from different beliefs and lifestyles their opinions on these issues were pretty much the same. They believe that choosing a lover, a husband and a partner is based on ones personality and the way that they were raised. All three believes that people should live together before getting married. Nikki and Marcie do not believe in open marriages and feels that an open marriage allows each other to cheat and be with someone else. Kaitlyn on the other hand feel that an individual can love more than one person.She is all for open marriages. Its funny, further all three women have found their recent husband or lover on the internet. They seem to be happy and would recommend internet dating to their friends. Marcie and Kaitlyn believe in premarital sex while Nikki is equable deep-rooted by some of her family belief s which are not to have sex until married. As you can see love is beyond constraints in these women lives. hold water but not least there is Craig and Shon. Craig is a 52yr old Caucasian male and Shon is a 40year old African American. Both men were married and are now divorce with children in their twenties.Soon these men will be moving in with their girlfriend of three years. Even though open marriages are not for them, Craig believes in What floats your boat. While Shon showed a subatomic jealously about the situation. He feels that people should not play with emotions because when he is with someone he is with that person. In these men lives, they believe that marriage is the act of a animal(prenominal) union. They have free choice over arranged marriages even if cultural differences play a role in genuine marriages. They support two people who have a bond to be able to have their marriage recognized by the state and church.In their eyes Gay marriages is a civil rights movem ent and have no complaints about a person who wants to stay single. Its your choice and whatsoever floats your boat. Just live life and be happy. Even though I have not talked about the theories one on one in this report one can see that all theories applied to every person that was interviewed. However I will explain each theory the way that our text clarified it. Attachment theory proposes that our primary motivating in life is to be connected with other people because this is the precisely true security we will ever have.The Attachment theory comes in three different styles. * Secure style I find it blowsy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depends on me. I dont often worry about being throw out or about someone get-ting too close to me. * Avoidant style I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others I find it difficult to trust them completely and to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close and when lovers want me t o be more privileged than I feel comfortable being. Anxious/ ambivalent style Others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesnt really love me or wont want to stay with me. I want to combine completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away. Sternbergs triangular Theory of Love According to Sternberg, the mix of intimacy, passion, and commitment can transform from one relation-ship to another.Relationships thus range from nonlove, in which all three components are absent, to consummate love, in which all the elements are present. Intimacy encompasses feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bonding. * Passion leads to romance, physical attraction, and sexual consummation. * Decision/ commitment have a short- and a semipermanent dimension. In the short term, partners make a decision to love each other in the long term, they make a commitment to concord that love over time. Lees Styles of Loving According to Lee , there are six basic styles of loving Eros, mania, ludus, storge, agape, and pragma, all of which overlap and whitethorn vary in intensity * Eros means love of beauty.Because it is likewise characterized by powerful physical attraction, eros epitomizes love at beginning(a) sight. This is the kind of love, often described in romance novels, in which the lovers populate palpitations, light-headedness, and zealous emotional desire. Erotic lovers want to know everything about each other what she or he dreamed about last iniquity and what happened on the way to work today. They often like to wear co-ordinated T- shirts and matching colors, to order the same foods when dining out, and to be identified with each other as totally as possible. MANIA Characterized by obsessiveness, jealousy, possessiveness, and intense dependency, mania whitethorn be expressed as anxiety, sleeplessness, and loss of appetite, headaches, and even suicide because of real or imagined rejection by the desir ed person. Manic lovers are consumed by thoughts of their beloved and have an insatiable need for attention and signs of affection. alienation is often associated with low self- esteem and a poor self- concept.As a result, manic people typically are not attractive to individuals who have a strong self- concept and high self- esteem. LUDUS is carefree and casual love that is considered fun and games. Ludic lovers often have several partners at one time and are not possessive or jealous, primarily because they dont want their lovers to become dependent on them. Ludic lovers have sex for fun, not emotional rapport. In their sexual encounters, they are typically self- centered and may be exploitative because they do not want commitment, which they consider scary. * STORGE is a slow-burning, peaceful, and affectionate love that comes with the passage of time and the enjoyment of shared activities.Storgic relationships leave out the ecstatic highs and lows that characterize some other styles. Sociologist Ira Reiss and his associates proposed a wheel theory of love that generated much research for several decades. Reiss described four-spot stages of love rapport, self- revelation, shared dependency, and personality need fulfillment. In the first stage, partners establish rapport based on cultural backgrounds with similar upbringing, social class, religion, and educational level. Without this rapport, according to Reiss, would- be lovers do not have enough in common to establish an initial interest.In the second stage, self- revelation brings the bridge closer together. Because each person feels more at ease in the relationship, she or he is more likely to discuss hopes, desires, fears, and ambitions and to engage in sexual activities. In the third stage, as the couple up becomes more intimate, the partners interchangeable dependency in-creases They exchange ideas, jokes, and sexual desires. In the fourth and final stage, the couple experiences personality ne ed fulfillment. The partners confide in each other, make mutual decisions, support each others ambitions, and bolster each others self- confidence.Like spokes on a wheel, these stages can turn many times that is, they can be repeated. For example, partners build some rapport, and then go bad bits of them, then build more rapport, then begin to exchange ideas, and so on. The spokes may keep turning to produce a deep and unchangeable relationship. Or, during a fleeting romance, the wheel may stop after a few turns. Information taken from Marriages & Families Changes, Choices, and Constraints, Seventh Edition by Nijole V. Benokraitis My personal interviews with Nikki, Dan, Craig, Shon, Marcie and Kaitlyn.

Hephaestus, the Master Craftsman

Hephaestus, the Greek paragon of fire, is most hero-worship for his master craftsmanship. In works of ruse he is usu eachy interpret as a middle-aged smith working in his forge, ofttimes making a thunderbolt for genus Zeus. Born of Hera al i, he was cast knock off as a baby from Olympus by his mother for his defective dark and fell for a whole day forwards he take a crap the ground. Nine years after he was thr cause from the enlightenments, he returned to Olympus and became one of the twelve majestic Gods. With Zeuss favor, he was able to connect Aphrodite, the goddess of love, who sadly never returned the love he gave to her.Hephaestus was loved by the mortals for his benevolence and he had an important role in Athens alongside genus Athene. virtually every weapon, piece of outfit, or building of any importance was crafted by Hephaestus. Hephaestus, rejected by his mother for his ugliness, helpered countless mortals and gods, married Aphrodite, and rose to Olympus to release the master craftsman honor by all. Hephaestus is the god of fire just now only in its positive and useful aspect. This besides includes everything that is accomplished by fire. in that respectfore, any fire that destroys or damages is non attributed to him (Berens 73).He, organism a smith, is the protector of smiths, both goldsmiths and pitch-darksmiths and jewelers. Also as a master constructor he is the god of builders, masons, and carpenters (Graves 15). He is also considered to be the god of volcanoes because this is where it was believed his forges were located. wrong his forges, he uses Cyclopes as his helpers because they do a natural endowment fund for forging (Bolton 178). Not only is Hephaestus a smith, he is also an architect, craftsman, and an mechanic (Bulfinch 13). In fact, he is sleep withn as the master craftsman (Hansen 185).He makes close to everything that the gods want from their weapons and armor, to their homes, palaces and chariots (Hamil ton 36). Hephaestus is an ugly god. He is often illustrated with grotesque facial features and malformed legs but with massive upper body strength. Usually he is shown wielding a hammer and working on a weapon or bearing of some kind (Berens 76). In other depictions of art, items often associated with work, such as an axe, a mule, and a pilos, otherwise known as a workmans hat, are utilise to even out him (Hansen 186). Hesphaestus is also represented by the quail.This birds strange dance in the springtime is seen as similar to how Hephaestus hobbles when he walks (Graves 15). Several stories exist on how Hephaestus was innate(p). While all stories agree that he was born to Hera, the goddess of marriage, they differ on when he was born and whether he had a father at all. Some say that he was born to Hera, alone, because she wanted to give pass on to a child by herself after Zeus simply gave birth to Athena (Martin 88). However, this is contradicted by the bilgewater that it was Hephaestus that helped Zeus give birth to Athena by splitting Zeuss head open to allow Athena to pop out.Therefore, Hera could not have been jealous of Athenas single parent birth since Athena hadnt been born yet (Berens 21). This leads to the rumor where Hera had Hephaestus long before being married to Zeus (Martin 88). But the easiest explanation is that Zeus was then his father, and he was born before Athena (Bulfinch 15). After Hephaestus was born, Hera realized that he was ugly and crippled, and to rid herself of such an embarrassment, she threw him off Olympus (Graves 86). He plummeted into the sea, and immediately he was saved by the sea-goddess Thetis.Thetis took him to an tubing cave where she and an oceanide Eurynome took turns caring for and raising the adolescent god (Hansen 183). For nine years he remained hidden in his secret, underground home. By the end of the nine years he was already an dexterous craftsman. He make elaborate items of jewelry, much to the de light of his caretakers (Martin 89). He also make useful objects like clasps, pins, and cups (Hansen 184). While Hephaestus was living with Thetis in the submersed cavern, she told him stories of his birth mother, Hera. After hearing these stories, Hephaestus desperately wanted visit on his mother for throwing him off Olympus.He began to work non-stop in his forge, leaving only for nectar and nectar. Some time later he emerged with a shining black and gold throne, his out primed(p) masterpiece. Displayed across the entire throne were different scenes characterization the stories of the gods. He requested that Thetis take the throne to Hera up on pot Olympus as a gift. When the throne was placed in front of Hera, she value it for a long time. After she sat down, she realized that she could not move. invisible bands of force held her in place. She yelled frantically, trying to escape but with no success.The other Olympians quickly came to her aid but none of them could release her either. They soon came to the conclusion that a god had made the throne, but they did not know who could have made it (Martin 89). Thetis, who happened to still be there, explained to the gods who made the throne. Ares immediately volunteered to let Hephaestus, and set off at once for the underwater cave. When Ares arrived, however, Hephaestus fought him off apply flaming brands. Ares returned to Olympus empty handed and Hera began to fear that she would spend eternity stuck in a chair. Luckily for Hera, Dionysus decided he would give it a try.He self-possessed an excessive amount of wine and traveled to the cave. He made no sign that he was trying to take Hephaestus to Olympus. Instead he gave Hephaestus the alcoholic beverage and soon had him so drunk that Hephaestus couldnt even walk. Dionysus then called upon his satyrs and donkey to escort Hephaestus back to Olympus in a grand parade of flute-playing and cymbal-smashing satyrs. erst they arrived at Olympus, Dionysus d eclared, on behalf of the drunken Hephaestus, that Hera could go only if Hephaestus was allowed to stay on Mount Olympus. Every god favored the agreement so Hephaestus open the throne, setting Hera free.From then on, Hephaestus the smith was one of the twelve Olympians (Martin 90). Many passel wonder how Olympuss ugliest god became the husband to the most beautiful goddess. There are several different explanations on how this happened. One trading floor says that when Hephaestus first saw Aphrodite, he immediately fell in love with her and went hearty to Zeus and Hera for permission to marry her. Since they both concord, they became husband and wife (Bolton 178). some other story states that Zeus gave Aphrodite to Hephaestus in thanks for him forging his lightning bolts (Bulfinch 4).A different story explains that Zeus married them to keep Aphrodite out of trouble. He scene she infallible a hardworking and disciplined husband, so he chose Hephaestus (Graves 16). Lastly, one conjecture says that Zeus set it up as revenge for when Aphrodite refused him as a lover (Bolton 178). No matter how they got married, one thing is always agreed upon. Hephaestus loved Aphrodite, but Aphrodite never returned that love (Hansen 184). Aphrodite never loved Hephaestus because she thought it was shameful to have a crippled and hideous husband (Graves 17).So rather of being a loyal and faithful wife, Aphrodite had many affairs with gods as comfortably as mortals. The most prominent affair was with Hephaestuss brother, Ares, the god of war. When Hephaestus found out about her affair with Ares, he became e peculiar(prenominal)ly angry (Hansen 184). Helios came to Hephaestus and told him of the affair between Aphrodite and Ares. Hephaestuss immediate reaction was of rage and revenge (Hansen 184). He went to his smithy and crafted a mate of invisible and indestructible chains. He took the chains and laid them over top of his get laid, checking to see if it was concealed .Hephaestus told Aphrodite that he would be leaving on vacation to Lemnos and pretended to depart. As soon as Aphrodite thought he was gone, she summoned Ares to arrange. They laid down in Hephaestuss own bed and instantly became trapped (Hansen 185). Hephaestus then returned to his house and summoned all of the gods to come with him. There, he let them view the humiliated and trapped lovers in bed (Bolton 180). Hephaestus explained to the gods how Aphrodite hated him for being crippled and loved Ares for being attractive. All the manly gods commented on the scene and viewed it without disgust.Several of the goddesses, however, did not enjoy themselves as much as the male gods did (Hansen 185). Everyone laughed though, and made fun of Ares and Aphrodite, but some mocked Hephaestus as well (Bolton 180). Finally, with some pleading from Poseidon, Hephaestus let the embarrassed lovers go (Hansen 185). Hephaestus may have had some problems with his wife, but he was very popular among the mortals. He taught them smithing and the art of metalworking (Berens 74). Aside from that, he was known for being very helpful. hunting watch once came to Hephaestuss forge on Lemnos after being blinded.Hephaestus took kindness on him and sent a guide to take him to Apollo. Because of his helpfulness, all the mortals reward him, and many of them worshiped him (Berens 73). He has temples on the volcanic Island of Lemnos and Mt. Maschylus (Graves 88). He also has a temple on Mount Etna and in Athens. To enter the temple on Mt. Etna, the mortals must pass fearsome hounds, who serve as guards. These hounds have the ability to smell if people are good or evil. With these special guards, only the clean and righteous souls can enter (Berens 76). His temple in Athens stands alongside the temple of Athena.In Athens he serves alongside Athena as the patron of handicrafts, specifically the guardian of the smiths (Hamilton 37). Hephaestus, being the master craftsman, made a great deal o f objects for the good of mankind. Many times he helped heroes on their quests, such as Hercules, Aeneas, and Achilles. For Hercules, Hephaestus crafted several gifts. First, he constructed an enormous pair of clappers that were somewhat like cymbals. Hercules used these to scare the Stymphalide birds (Berens 286). He made a golden breastplate on Hercules behalf (Hansen 185).Lastly, he sent Hercules a golden quiver as a gift for when he became noted among the gods (Berens 282). For Aeneas, he crafted an impressive set of armor at the request of his goddess-mother (Bulfinch 155). Aeneas used the armor to defeat Turnus in battle. Finally, to the hero Achilles, he gave a set of impenetrable armor after Thetis, Achilles mother, asked him to help her son. Achilles had lost his previous armor and needed a replacement to protect him in his search for Hector. When Hephaestus was visited by Thetis and heard her request, he set all other work deflexion to complete it (Bulfinch 121).Besides helping mortals, Hephaestus had other responsibilities. As the master craftsman, he solely designed and built the numerous palaces on Mount Olympus. These included the fantastic palace of Zeus and Hera at the peak of Olympus to the palaces of every other Olympian god to even the majestic thrones that sat in each (Berens 20). Again, being the master craftsman, he built many other things. For mighty Zeus, he made the shield, Aegis and constantly replenishes his supply of thunderbolts (Bulfinch 2). To Artemis he gave armor and arrows to help her on her hunts (Bolton 178).Some of his greatest works were built for Apollo, the god of the sun. These included the vivid palace of the sun in the east, as well as Apollos own Sun chariot (Bulfinch 23). Hephaestus lived through his harsh and misfortunate universe of discourse to become a well respected god, loved for his kindness and honored by the humans and gods that he assisted in numerous ways. everyday man chose the common quail, whose springtime dance is like his limping walk, to represent him. When he was born, his ugliness caused Hera to cast him off Olympus to rid herself of the embarrassment.Thetis took him in, raised him, and he later returned to Olympus in revenge to Hera. Aphrodite became his wife although her loyalty was to Ares, Hephaestuss brother, and not to her husband. Hephaestus was honored by having temples in Athens and on Mt. Etna. The most tall(a) works known to gods or mortals were created by Hephaestus. Even though Hephaestus is the ugliest god on Olympus, he became one of the most popular in heaven as well as on earth by mirthfully aiding humans and kindly assisting his fellow gods alike.