Can Technology Dehumanize Our Society Essay Example for Free

Can Technology Dehumanize Our Society Essay Technology can dehumanize our society including our school/s. Its because in the advancement and modernization of things which to be manipulated by the people(gadgets etc. ), life has to be somehow be convenient and easier but we should also look on the side that technology can remove skills and qualities of people in dealing with things around them and they wont find any alternatives or options if technology is always present. For instance, in school/s, particularly in a classroom setting, if all of the students have their own personal computers, they will rely and be much independent through visiting websites that could provide answers on their research given by their teacher, the negative result of this is that, yes, they surely easily access information by just clicking one at a time but the traditional way of finding and acquiring information from books(more accurate information than those of the websites) or any reading materials that could somehow develop their reading skills is already gone. Indolence and laziness may occur also. The negative result of technology is that people will just have to sit all day long and will have to be dependent on technology. As ive heard also, some people are just infront of their laptops having thisonline schooling and if you could accomplish the length of time needed, youll be having/ given a diploma . For me, of course it isnt bad but the essence of formal schooling(attending school. being evaluated and monitored by a mentor is already gone). Despite of all the advancement of technology, we became a society of indolent people relying so much on it.

Philosophy-Who needs it :: essays research papers

1. Is there anything you would willingly die for?  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In order to answer the question â€Å"is there anything I would willingly die for† I would want some reassurance that what I was dying for would be successful. But without some type of guarantee it would be hard to know for sure if I would be able to complete my promise. Of course I would like to be able to say that I would die for any of my beliefs but I have to admit that if I was forced to choose dying for my religion or declaring another I would superficially accept the other religion to save my life. I would hope however that I could continue to practice my religion in secret without loosing my life. I would be willing to die for the ones I love mainly my family but in the same aspect I would want to know that my death was not in vain. When the question was posed to the class most students responded with an answer similar to my own. Many of the students stated that they would be willing to die for their family and the people they loved but when it came down to a death that did not ensure the outcome they desired many people seemed to loose their conviction. Many people did believe that they could donate a vital organ or give their life to save a loved one. As in my own mind it would be more difficult to say that you could give your life on the off chance of success. I do believe that it is much easier to say that one could die for something or someone but in truth when at the final moment of decision it would be hard to knowingly give your life. Socrates was able to give his life for his beliefs and â€Å"went willingly to his death†. The Greeks would often choose death over shame of their fellow countrymen and for centuries death (in certain circumstances) was seen as noble and brave. It all seems to come down to the fact that there is no clear-cut way to define what one would die for but that it is more a matter of questioning what it is you are dying for and how your life will change the lives of others. 4. Do you believe in God?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I believe in my God.

Tale of Two Coaches

Running Head: Tale of Two Coaches and Leadership Tale of Two Coaches and Leadership Randal J. Reutzel Grand Canyon University: LDR – 600 October 27, 2011 Abstract Coaching and leadership seem to be synonymous with each other, in that if you’re a high caliber coach you must be a great leader, how else would you have achieved your success. While coaching in the NCAA division 1 basketball the goal is to win national championships, while also being a mentor to your students. Bobby Knight is a great basketball legend at Indiana, with a past of outrageous unacceptable behavior to the fans and to players, while also having one of the best collegiate records of all time. Coach Krzyzewski was also a great coach, was mentored by coach Knight and went on to be a legend at Duke. Coach K’s style of coaching was less dramatic and more heartfelt in his approach. Coach K’s was concerned for his player’s feelings and his style of motivating his players centered on less dramatizations on and off the court. Both Coaches were successful; one got into the heads of its players through coercive intimidation to be the best, the other through caring, talking and high levels of trust. Which coach is best depends on whom you ask and what perspective of coaching leadership style you prefer, or it could be a generational time difference or simply opposite styles that worked and produced results. Tale of Two Coaches and Leadership Leaders through time have on many occasions aligned their leadership styles to the great coaches either in the NFL or NBA. Does being a great coach and the techniques used by coaches translate into what leaders or managers should be leading employees by? Two great coaches with NCAA basketball championships, one mentored by the other, can have very different approaches and still get the results needed, winning seasons along with students who went on to great careers and have great respect for their mentors and coaches. Coach Bobby Knight led his teams through his relationship from a base of power. In the article from ESPN by Mike Puma, Knight was known for his tirades against players, referees and reporters as well as his brilliance to win games. Knight led his teams with complete control and nobody was second guessing his decisions, if they did it was with great conflict. He may have wanted to resolve the conflict but it was going to be on his terms. Knight led his teams with complete control from his position as the head of the team. He demanded certain expectations and rewarded this with play time or with sharp reprimands and punishment. His style was that of a managerial role, he demanded respect in that he held the position of power and he alone would be the master of activities and routines and this would influence players and the ultimate outcome. Northouse, 2010) Coach Knight led his teams with a history of demanding on others what he could not accomplish as a player. He developed a pattern of coercion that was demonstrated even off the court, by assaulting police during the Pan Am games or throwing chairs across courts. (Northouse, 2010) Coach Krzyzewski or â€Å"K† led his teams through his relations from a b ase of personal power, with no mistake he was the head coach. Coach K was mentored as a player and assistant coach for the military under Coach Bob Knight. Although Coach K went into the military, he was not of military mind, and this may have latter influenced his leadership traits. He dreamed of being a teacher not a military officer. (Bob Carter) What he learned from Knight was it took an unbelievable passion to be a leader, not Knights antics that put him into trouble more often than not. Coach K lead his teams and to championships through his role as a leader by inspiring and energizing the team, taking ownership in their actions. Grant Hill said coach K had a way of making people totally vested in the decision-making process, and that is what made him a great leader. Bob Carter) Traits of Coaching and Leadership Both coaches had specific traits that lead them to success, although one coach’s traits also lead to his demise while the other coach realized the passion needed and channeled his leadership spirit into more socially acceptable patterns. Coach Knight and Coach K were both intelligent and knew the intellectual struct ure of creating and leading great basketball teams. They demonstrated the ability to get talent and use that talent in different ways against different teams to win games and championships. Early in both coaches careers they knew what they wanted and what careers they wanted to pursue. To get to their end means of coaching they played the sport, learned from others and when through college level training. All of the training, and along the way making mistakes, they gained the confidence within themselves and gained self-esteem and self-assurance that they could make a difference. Coach Knight was given the opportunity through the army as a coach to demonstrate his style of leadership was the correct one. Coach K through the army was given the education, with his passion of basketball and mentoring from Coach Knight gained the self confidence to become what he wanted to be, a teacher and a coach. Determination for both coaches was that they wanted to be winners, leaders, and be a part of something great. Early in Coach Knight’s career even he stated that he only offered indentured servitude and unlimited practice. Early in Coach K’s career he was not an outstanding coach; others did believe in him and he gained self confidence with good players at Duke. Coach K again is quoted he learned from Knight the passion and amount of preparation it takes to be successful. (Bob Carter) Integrity is the ability of a leader to live and lead with some principles and take responsibility for their actions. The ability to possess integrity should build confidence in your team. Integrity is probably where the two coaches will separate their styles of leadership. Coach Knight through the years did several things to damage that integrity, through his actions in Panama or ways he degraded assistant coaches or lecturing teams with the use of props of soiled toilet paper. There were many times where his actions did not represent the role which he was given and he made little effort to change unless he was forced. Coach K built much of what he was on his integrity; he stuck up for his players many times. Once his team was graded by the student paper, it was the fact that the paper portrayed the players as instruments of entertainment and ego indulgence; this infuriated the coach, which he later apologized. What Coach K stood for was a caring, communication and trust within the team, and that was what he wanted for the whole student body, and why his fan base was so strong. The last important trait style of leadership is the ability for a leader to seek out good pleasant social relationships. The leader should be thought of as friendly, outgoing, courteous, tactful and diplomatic. Coach Knight, I believe, started out his career with these traits as he had to, through time, over confidence and ego caused him to lose most of these traits. People would say if you only know him like I do, but it was reported that he was known to be rude, defiant and hostile. (Bob Carter) Coach K on the other hand was exponentially known for his trait as having social leadership skills. He said you have to feel what your players feel in order to be a leader. A former player and now a coach Quin Snyder said that you give up ego to be a part of something special. (Bob Carter) Ego can and will get in the way of great social ability to lead a team and be a part of a team. Coach K has been and will be remember for his greatness, he possessed the most complete set of the 5 trait characteristics of a leader and it made him more accomplished and respected. Coach Knight lacked in the traits and his ego, temper, integrity came back to haunt him. He may be remembered more for his antics on and off the court than his record wins or development of players. The Three Skills of Coaching Success The three skills that are needed for success as a leader according to our reading from Robert Katz and Michael D. Mumford are Technical, Human and Conceptual. Through the levels of management different emphasis is required from each to be a great leader. In the situation of the coaches, they needed to possess top management skills where human and conceptual skills place more important than the technical aspects of the game of basketball. In the readings, both coaches knew the technical aspects of the game and surrounded themselves with knowledgeable assistances. Coach K’s emphasis was the human and conceptual aspects of his team and his responsibility to the school and its students. His kids needed to feel a part of something great and bigger than themselves and togetherness, this was demonstrated when coach K handed team phone numbers out and encouraged freshman to use them. (Mike Puma) Coach Knight demonstrated skills for the technical and conceptual skills; he had an ability to always figure out the best approach to win games against many different teams. Coach Knight is on record for being the youngest coach ever to win 600 games. He struggled with the ability to work with people that did not match his style or demands of doing exactly everything his way. He continually abused players and assistant coaches, while also getting in trouble in foreign countries. Leadership Grid Comparison The leadership grid from chapter 4, developed by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton, is basically a grid of different leadership styles with the two axis x – horizontal measure is based for results and y- vertical is based on concern for people. I believe from the reading that coach K and Knight developed strong leadership styles based on one premise for winning, or results. What they did was go about teaching and leading the teams differently to attain those results. Coach K moved his leadership style around as he needed to according to the needs of players or the team. Based on his style he concentrated his style in the middle of the road, trying to balance the need to get work done and the team needs, but he strongly styled his effort in the direction of team management by surrounding his team with committed members and built relationships of trust and respect. Coach Knight directed his leadership style more as an authority-compliance manager. He expected things to be done his way, and everyone around him to carter to his needs, whether that was good for personal development or not. The win, and only the win, was what needed to happen and he stepped and plowed through anyone and by any controversial tirade he had to get there. He even said in an interview that if you’re being raped to lay back and enjoy it. I believe this was his way of saying to the interviewer about his tantrums – which everyone just needed to put up with him. When he goes wild he wants to not be held responsible for his actions and for everyone to shut up. (Mike Puma) Contingency Model for Coaches The question presented: were both coaches matched to their situation based on the model developed by Fred Edward Fiedler described as the contingency mode? I think the answer is both yes and no. The styles of leadership in this model are described as being a task motivated or relationship motivated leadership. From the reading both coaches were winning coaches, they both used different approaches to get the results. In this model Coach K was high on leader-member, but with strong tasks, and did this without enforcing his positional power. Coach K did well with this leadership style at Duke University. Coach Knight was more task structured, the requirements were clear and spelled out and Knight controlled everything around him. When things got out of his control, people and team mates suffered and things did not go well for the coach. This goes against the model in some aspects in that if you’re out of control the task relationship should work out better for this type of leader, but there are flaws in the model. This works well for someone with specific tasks like fixing a part or cleaning a sink. In the situation of coach Knight it was more ambiguous in the tasks that needed to be accomplished. He could not deal with ambiguity and his temper showed as he took it out on other people and team members. (Northouse, 2010) Situational Leadership II The two coaches showed evidence from both readings that they practiced some level of situational leadership. Coach K demonstrated that he stood up for his players and they knew they could trust him. When he gave the ball to Laettner to stuff a basket in the final seconds to win a championship he knew he had the skills and would get the job done. He wanted to win for the team not for himself and even said once, did you see their faces and how happy they are. (Bob Carter) Coach K led his team by the skills that the team had; he did not change them, he developed them. Coach Knight, I believe, also led teams by development and using skills in the appropriate areas. He did it in a fashion of sheer work and drive to hone the skill in each person to exactly the perfection he wanted. When he did not get it or thought they were not giving enough, there were consequences for all around. Coach Knight was low on the supportive and directive behavior quadrant; I do not think he felt comfortable or confident to manage from that perspective. (Northouse, 2010) He excelled from the more comfortable leadership position S2 with only fringes of S1 or S3, unless they were extremely successful. Path-Goal Theory The path-goal theory of leadership is by understanding and leading people through enhancing performance and satisfaction and then focusing on what motivates them. For both coaches and for the entire player, the goal was to win games and that is what everyone wants. Both coaches had to go out and get potential players and those player and coaches began a dialogue on what both wanted and how they were going to achieve it. I believe that players that were coached by Knight knew his style and methods that he used to win games. Even today people say you don’t know him like we do, meaning his methods to them were acceptable. Likewise, Coach K went out to get players and they knew what he was like and his methods. The players chose to go with the perspective school and accepted them based on learned knowledge. Both coaches led their players in a fashion that was in an achievement-oriented style to reach their highest potential for the best outcome – winning games. The players with the desire of external locus of control probably liked Coach K style of leadership. The external locus of control the subordinate likes to feel more in control of their destiny and maybe take part in the decisions; this would be a part of something special with players and Coach K. Coach Knight was a dominate leader and coach, in control of everything – external locus of control players would believe more outside forces are in control. Directive leadership would be best for these types of players as they like the idea of someone taking control. Both teams coached by either Knight or Krzyzewski demonstrated the task characteristics as both coaches and players needed to be able to perform on the floor during a game with independence as things happen fast. Both coaches needed their teams to function on their own with a high degree of confidence. They would use the skills taught to them to win the game. References Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications Bob Carter, Krzyzewskiville, ESPN Classic. From: http://www. espn. go. com/classic/biography/s/Krzyzewski_Mike. html Mike Puma, Knight Known for titles, temper, ESPN Classic. From: http://espn. go. com/classic/biography/s/Knight_Bob. html

Report For Reinaldo Products New Investment Under Consideration Finance Essay - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 7 Words: 2015 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Finance Essay Type Argumentative essay Did you like this example? 1) Should Reinaldo focus on cash flows or accounting profits in making our capital-budgeting decisions? Should we be interested in incremental cash flows, incremental profits, total free cash flows, or total profits? When undertaking a new project an organisation usually uses Capital Budgeting Techniques which gives a better understanding of the outcome of the project to the management by taking management decisions accordingly. Let us first understand what Capital Budgeting is: Capital Budgeting can be understood as a process or technique by which a financial manager or analyst can understand which amongst the different projects will earn the highest yield during the life of the project. It is a process which helps the management to determine if a project (e.g. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Report For Reinaldo Products New Investment Under Consideration Finance Essay" essay for you Create order buying new machinery or plant, replacement of machinery or investing in research and development) is worth investing. Companies always have ideas for many projects hence Capital Budgeting helps them select the best project with highest returns. While making capital budgeting decisions Reinaldo has to focus on cash flows however accounting profits also can be focused. However more weightage has to be given to cash flow. The movement of money in and out of a business is known as Cash Flow. The financial health of an organisation is measured by cash flow. Cash flow helps to determine the liquidity of an organisation, even though the firm is profitable it need not be liquid enough and can result in its failure due to shortage of cash. Preferably managers should make capital budgeting decisions based on Incremental Cash Flows and by discounting them to find out their present time value of money. Positive incremental cash flow states that there will be an increase in the cash if the pro ject is undertaken. Accounting Profits is another area of focus as it shows the total earnings of the project to be undertaken. Any project whose profits will be below the organisations required rate of return cannot be undertaken, therefore adequate focus has to be made on the forecast of the projects impact on its financial statements and the earnings it will provide to its stakeholders. As the project is supposed to be terminated after 5 years, we will have to take decisions based on Incremental profits. The profits will increase as long as the incremental profit is more than the incremental costs. 2) How does depreciation affect free cash flows? Depreciation is a non cash expense used in accounting which reduces the value of a tangible asset due to the assets wear and tear. Depreciation being a non cash expense reduces the total net earnings of an organisation hence resulting in the reduction of the total tax payable by the firm. While preparing free cash flows depreciation is first deducted from the earnings and then tax amount is calculated (i.e. the total tax amount payable by the organisation reduces), depreciation being a non cash expense is then added back again to the free cash flow statement. This means that depreciation does not directly affect free cash flow but has an indirect affect on the same as it reduces the cash outflow of tax payable. Table 2.1 showing the effect of depreciation on Free Cash Flow Earnings before Depreciation, Interest and Tax (EBDIT) ( ) Depreciation = Earnings before Interest and Tax ( ) Tax ( + ) Depreciation = Operating Cash Flow ( ) Incremental Working Capital ( ) Capital Investment = Free Cash Flow 3) How do sunk costs affect the determination of cash flows? The money which has already been spent but cannot be recovered is termed as Sunk Costs and is also known as Stranded Costs. These costs are incurred before an activity hence it is an outflow in the cash flow statement. A huge sunk cost can make an investment irreversible. A high sunk costs effect on the cash flow is significantly larger than those with low sunk costs. It is not possible to undo the a cash flow outflow which has incurred sunk cost, hence only the costs incurred in the future will be relevant as these cash disbursements can be controlled. 4) The Projects Initial Outlay Initial outlay is the initial net investment required for starting up a new business or a new project. The net cost which a will be incurred by the organisation for the start up of a new business or a new project is called as the projects initial outlay. The initial outlay of a project not only includes land building, plant and machinery but also includes the initial working capital required at the commencement of the project. For Reinaldo its projects initial outlay will include: Cost of Plant and Equipment. Shipping and Installation Costs. Initial Working Capital required. The above table shows that the Reinaldos total project initial outlay is $8,100,000 /- 5) The Differential Cash Flows over the project life Differential Cash flow is the Free Cash Flow of a project after taking into account the changes in its revenue, operating expenses, taxes, depreciation and incremental working capital excluding terminal cash flow. The Differential cash flows of Reinaldos project over its life of 5 years can be seen in the below tables. 6) The Terminal Cash Flow During the termination of a business or a project the net sale proceed of the firms assets, taxes related to capital gain and the release of its initial outlay towards the working capital is known as Terminal Cash Flow. At Reinaldo Products there is no salvage value of its plant and equipment hence only the realisation of its working capital will be its terminal cash flow. Therefore the Terminal Cash flow of Reinaldo Products = $ 1,560,000/- Table 6.1 below shows the calculation of its Working Capital as for Reinaldo only its liquidated Working Capital will be its Terminal Cash Flow. 7) The Cash Flow Diagram for this Project Cash Flow is one of the financial statements which shows the relationship between the net income and changes in cash balances, it reports the cash receipts and the cash payments for a particular period. A Cash Flow Statement is prepared under the following headings: Cash Flow from Operating Activities Cash Flow from Financing Activities Cash FLowfrom Investing Activities Cash Flow Diagram is a graphical representation showing the closing balances of the firms cash flow statements which is the net inflow or the net outflow of cash. 8) The Net Present Value. Net Present Value or NPV is the valuation of a projects present value of cash inflows with the difference of its present value of cash outflows. It is done by discounting the cash flow balances of the future periods to its present value and by deducting the initial investment. This is done by taking into consideration inflation and returns into account as the worth of a dollar at present will be much higher than the worth of it in the future. NPV plays a very important role in the capital-budgeting process for an investment or project to be undertaken as it recognises the Time Value of Money for the investment and its required rate of return. The decision rules of NPV are as below: When NPV 0 The project can be Accepted (Return is greater than the required Rate) When NPV = 0 The project is Acceptable (Return equal to Required Rate) When NPV 0 The project is Rejected (Return is less than the required Rate) The Calculation of NPV can be done as per the below fo rmula: Net Present Value (NPV) As per the given project at Reinaldo and taking its forecasted cash flows for the 5 years of the project life with the Required Rate of Return being 15% the NPV for the project under consideration for Reinaldo Products is $ 16,744,053 /- NPV can also be calculated using an Excel spreadsheet as solved in Table 8.1. The Internal Rate of Return Internal Rate of Return or IRR is the rate of return or the discounted rate which makes the present value of the cash flows equal to its initial outlay. In other words IRR is when the discount rate used in Capital Budgeting forces the Net Present Value (NPV) of all its cash flows for a proposed project to be equal to zero (NPV= 0). IRR is also known as Economic Rate of Return (ERR) IRR is most frequently used in Capital Budgeting to determine if the project is worthy enough to be undertaken. The decision rule if IRR is as below: If IRR = required rate of return The project is Accepted. If IRR required rate of return The project is Rejected. IRR can be calculated by using the below formula mbox{NPV} = sum_{n=0}^{N} frac{C_n}{(1+r)^{n}} = 0 As per the given project at Reinaldo and taking its forecasted cash flows for the 5 years of the project life its IRR can be calculated as below: Where, r = internal rate of return, when NPV is zero Putting r = 75 % N PV = 218 When r = 80% NPV = (-) 305 When r = 77.02 % NPV = 0 (approximately) Therefore Internal Rate of Return (IRR) = 77.02 % 10) Acceptance of Project? Why or Why not? After the preparation of all the forecasted future cash flows and keeping in mind the internal rate of return(as done above), to come to a final decision whether an investment should be undertaken or not the decision needs to be based on the below mentioned Capital Budgeting Techniques: Net Present Value (NPV) Profitability Index (PI) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) a) Net Present Value (NPV) The NPV of the given project is $ 16,744,053 which is greater than 0 b) Profitability Index (PI) The PI of the project is 2.067 c) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) The IRR of the project is 77.02 % The above project will be ACCEPTED as it is meeting all the rules of NPV, PI and IRR. NPV is $ 16,744,053 which is greater than 0 PI is 2.067 is also greater than 0 IRR is 77.02 % and is again meeting the rule for accepting the project. IRR being 77.02 % making the NPV of the cash flows to be equal to 0. The Return of the project is much higher than the Required Rate o f Return of Reinaldo Products. 11) Other two Investments with one-year lives. a) Calculation of Net Present Value (NPV) NPV = (Investment) + Cash Flow* PVIF(r, n) NPV for Project A = (195,000) + 240,000 * PVIF (10%, 1) = (195,000) + 240,000 * 0.9091 = (195,000) + 218,184 =$ 23,184 NPV for Project B = (1,200.000) + 1,650,000 * PVIF (10 %, 1) = (1,200,000) + 1,650,000 * 0.9091 = (1,200,000) + 1,500,015 = $ 300,015 Hence the NPV: Project A $23,184 Project B $ 300,015 c) Calculation of Internal Rate of Return IRR is when: mbox{NPV} = sum_{n=0}^{N} frac{C_n}{(1+r)^{n}} = 0 IRR for project A Where, r = internal rate of return, when NPV is zero Putting r = 20 %, NPV = 5000 When r = 25 %, NPV = (-) 3000 When r = 23.07 %, NPV = 0 (approx) IRR for Project B Where, r = internal rate of return, when NPV is zero Putting r = 35 %, NPV = 22,222.22 When r = 40 %, NPV = (-) 21,428.5 When r = 37.5 %, NPV = 0 Hence the IRR: Project A 23.07 Project B 37.5 d) If there is no capital rationing constraints, which project should be selected? If there is a capital rationing constraint, how should the decision be made? Capital Rationing is when a company limits or restricts the amount to be invested in its new project. Capital Rationing is imposed by the companies by either imposing a higher cost of capital or by setting a ceiling on specific sections. The reason behind imposing capital rationing can be because a certain company might have generated lower returns than their expected required rate in their past investments. If Reinaldo faces no capital- rationing then it should choose Project B as its NPV is very high at $ 300,015 also its PI and IRR are positive with 0.25 and 37.5 respectively. However if the company has excess of reserves and has an option of not having to choose only one project between the two, then it can even invest in both the projects as both the projects will provide returns higher than their required rate of return. If there is capital rationing constraint then it is better to invest in Project A as it provides good returns with lower investment. The capital in vestment of project A is $195,000 which is $1,005,000 less than that of project B. Also with lesser investment project As NPV, PI and IRR is 23,148, 0.12 and 23.07% respectively which means that the rate of return is much higher than the companys required rate of 10 %.