UK Prime Minister David Cameron called the August 2011 riots in England, “criminality
pure and simple.” For sociologists, however, there is nothing “pure and simple” about
such events. Thinking sociologically about the riots means trying to understand what
were the social characteristics of the rioters, what were their motivations, what
discontents were they expressing, and what social conditions prompted them to enact
their discontents in this particular way. What light can sociology shed on these events?
What do we know about the rioters’ sense of social and political marginalization and
economic deprivation, their perception of the police, the motivation for looting, the
influence of consumer culture, the role of communication technology and the media in
the spread of rioting? You should refer to LSE/The Guardian, Reading the Riots report
and other materials that i uploaded and any other sociological literature,
video, news reports and commentary that you deem relevant.

CASE STUDY IS ATTACHED – PLEASE DO NOT BID UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND IT SECURITY — IN PARTICULAR NIST PUBLICATIONS – AND ARE ABLE TO RELATE TO CASE STUDY AND MEET RUBRIC REQUIREMENTS

The Manager’s Deskbook contains issue specific policies and implementation procedures which are required to mitigate risks to the company and to otherwise ensure good governance of the company’s operations. The Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) and key CISO staff members held a kick-off meeting last week to identify issue specific policies which should be added to the company’s policy system in the IT Governance category. The policies will be disseminated throughout the company by incorporating them into the Manager’s Deskbook. The required issue specific policies are:

1.Data Breach Response Policy

2.Preventing / Controlling Shadow IT Policy

3.Management and Use of Corporate Social Media Accounts Policy

4.Corporate Domain Name Management Policy

5.Website Governance Policy

For the purposes of this assignment, you will create a policy recommendations briefing package (containing an Executive Summary and draft policies) and submit that to your instructor for grading.

Emotional Arousal

For this discussion, reflect on the physiological arousal you have experienced during an intense emotion. Describe the following:

• How that arousal affected you.
• How the arousal may have provided information about the quality or intensity of the emotion.
• How the arousal may have merely been your body’s preparation for action.
• Some effective strategies for managing strong emotional arousal.

Remember to cite scholarly evidence to support your statements when appropriate, using APA (6th edition) style and formatting.

Response Guidelines

After your initial response to the discussion question, respond to at least two other learners’ posts by asking questions and adding comments that expand and deepen the conversation. Your responses are expected to be substantive in nature.

Resources

• PSYC Discussion Participation Scoring Guide.
• APA Style and Format.

After observing children and caregivers at Child Development Center, you will be able to reflect and give your interpretation of what you observed and connect them to one of the ten principles. There are 10 principles.

As you observe children, caregivers, and program interactions, you will connect them to ALL ten principles.

• Give specific observations and quotes to show how the principle was observed
• In your opinion, indicate if the observations of the principle in action was appropriate
• If you were unable to see one or two of the principles in action, write down how the principle would appropriately look like in an infant/toddler program. You might need to visit the CDC more than once if you are unable to observe the principles in action.

main question

Based on what you have read about job satisfaction, and the contents of the first two lectures, what difference does working for a “good” boss versus a “bad” boss make in terms of “productive effort supply?” Begin by distinguishing a “good” boss from a “bad” one.

Then explain whether, and to what extent, the difference shows up in worker productivity. If you can, estimate the difference in terms of a percentage. That is, how much more (if any) productivity might a good boss get out of his or her people than would a “bad” boss? (each 250word will be fine)

reply2

#1

Most people who have working experiences probably will encounter effective/poor leaderships. Generally speaking, we refer our boss as a “good boss” or a “bad boss”. Some common characteristics of a good leader including coach others, have a good will, generate enthusiasm, say “we”, fix the problems, show people how things done, develop people, give credit, and ask people’s opinions. On the other hand, a bad boss would drive people, depend on authority, inspire fear, say “I”, place blame for the problems, know how things done but do not show it, use people, take away credits, and command people.

Although good bosses and bad bosses are everywhere, but how their leaderships affect us as an employee? In my personal experiences, I have met both. I notice that my productivity and motivation for work are higher when my boss’s leadership is effective and my productivity and motivation decrease when I have a bad boss. According to the article from IZA World of Labor, a good boss elicits higher performance among workers, and lower quit rates. A main characteristic of a good boss is that he/she is a good teacher(Shaw,2019). I couldn’t agree with this finding more. When I first graduated from the college, I had a good boss so I learn a lot from her. Just in 3 months, I can feel and tell my growth was significant. In my next job, I had a very ineffective manager, I can hardly recall I learn anything from him in a whole year. Therefore, the effect is obvious. Having a good leader is beneficial not only for the company but also for the employees themselves.

Reference:

Shaw, & L., K. (2019, January 9). Bosses matter: The effects of managers on workers’ performance. Retrieved from https://wol.iza.org/articles/bosses-matter-the-eff…

#2

Job satisfaction relates to an employees relationship with their job and how positive they feel that role is for them. Robbins and Judge discuss the underlying elements to job satisfaction that include:

1) Relationship to job

2) Talents and preferences in relation to the employee

3) Job design

An easy way to measure job satisfaction would be a simple direct question from a scale of 1-5, ‘how do you like your job’. The reality however is more complex than a simple yes or no.

The Gallup study of 2013 indicated that a whopping 63% of worldwide employees are ’not engaged’ and dissatisfied with their job.

Stanford University psychology professor Robert Sutton supports the infamous phrase that ‘people leave bad bosses and not jobs’ . Certain employees may stay to a certain extent with a bad boss because they are committed to their profession yet their performance still remains above the limit threshold.

What would constitute a bad boss versus a good boss and how does that correlate to an employee’s productive effort supply? Let’s delve deeply here into this discussion.

Everyone has had their share of bad bosses, however certain traits to mention are: micromanaging instead of delegating, having a one size fits all management approach, doesn’t lead by example, has no empathy, takes credit for employees work, has no focus or direction let alone respect for fellow employees and is entitled. (Yonung Entrepreneur Council, 2018)

A good boss on the other hand is more patient, honest, inspires, motivates, their vision aligns with that of the company’s, has a clear communication stream and rewards good work, encourages and supports junior team members and is inclusive.

An employee’s production effort supply is how much their effort translates into production output and how much value that brings to the company.

A good boss, naturally, would result in employees performing at a high threshold given that they are committed to their roles and enjoy the job they are performing. In this way, there is the organizational citizenship behavior is prominent throughout the team. There is a 140% upper limit of management standard that shouldn’t be surpassed as then bosses will take their juniors for granted. (Robbins & Judge, 2018).

A bad boss, could result in an employee quitting and leaving which would result in the bad boss having to make up this loss by the cost of the turnover. The other alternative is quitting and staying which could lead to poorer performance if they aren’t motivated, overworked, the boss doesn’t value their efforts and that naturally results to a decline in productive effort support but just up till the ‘safety zone’.

In terms of worker productivity, boss impact is measurable. Studies by Stanford University students suggest that an average boss adds about 1.75x as much output as relative employee. (Lazear & al, 2014). A simple calculation would result in time = human capital x effort.Whilst, the standard deviation of boss effect equals 4.74 units of output, worker is only 1.33.

Replacing a boss in the lowest 10th percentile with a boss that is in the 90th percentile increases output by one team member. (Shaw, n.d.)

A 90th percentile of boss quality increases productivity by 6.07 whilst a boss in the lower percentile would probably decrease productivity by half of that amount. Google tested out this theory and realized retaining good employees is higher with a good boss.

Under the norm of reciprocity one would hope a relatively decent boss would ensure company profitability. However, it is important to note that effect of good bosses on high quality workers is greater than the effect of good bosses on lower quality workers. By having a higher quality boss, productivity could surge by 50%. (Shaw, n.d)