Larry Ross (not his real name) was interviewed by writer Studs Terkel over 30 years ago. Do you think most managers in the 21st century would describe their jobs in the same way? I think most managers in the 21st century would describe their jobs in the same way which is manager is a difficult job. Over 30 years ago Larry Ross described the corporation as a jungle in where everybody had to be alert, even the CEO. “You’re thrown in on your own and you’re constantly battling to survive. ” “It is a question of living or dying. And what is happening in nowadays? I believe that no matter where you’re living in right now, you often see people are fight for their jobs, because everyone has their own families to feed. They will step on each others just to secure their jobs. Even if you are the manager, there are always guys that under you trying to take your spot. Especially, who are middle and upper managers, they will be under a lot of pressures. Like Larry Ross said, “ I don’t know of any situation in the corporate world where an executive is completely free and sure of his job from moment to moment.
So over 30 years, things haven’t changed so much. Manager is still a very difficult and high- pressure job. 2)Does Larry Ross provide an accurate and realistic picture of how organizations operate? If you think so, it is true of all, most, some, or only a few organizations? Why did you answer as you did? I think Larry Ross provide a pretty accurate and realistic picture of how organizations operate. I believe that many years ago or nowadays, the larger or older a corporation is, the more rigid it is. There are always three classes in every large corporations.
First, there are the black or white people who are ambitious, want to be the leaders. Second are the gray people who come from nine to five, do their jobs and don’t care much about anything else. Finally, above all of them are the board of directors who’s really playing the role of God, control everything. All they ever care are their profits in the business. And when things go bad, they will protect themselves and fire everyone. But like I said above it is just how LARGE corporations would often behave this way. There are new or small corporations would operate in an idealistic way.
It means that the top manager actually do care about the life of the employee. They want to increase their profits of the corporations, but also they want to improve the employee’s life. But like Ross said the more older a organization gets, the more rigid it will be. So I think that many years in the future, we will see more corporations operate in the more human way. 3) Is the organization better (or worse) off if managers behave like Larry Ross? Why? Do you think Larry Ross would be successful in the most 21st-century organizations?
I think that organizations are worse off if managers behave like Larry Ross. Because, one of the idealistic skill needed by managers is Human( interpersonal) skill which is able to work and to manage relationships with others alone or in groups. But his type of management causes lack of communication in the organization. Ross said, “ he cant confide and talk with the guys working under him. He cant confide and talk to the man he’s working for. ” Simply, he just doesn’t trust in others. He’s afraid of others will take advantage of what he said to take over his spot, so he’s always alert.
But the ideal of managing is that a manager is the connection between the top manager and the employee. So I don’t think Larry Ross did a good job in doing that. Anyhow, like my last assumption, most nowadays operations still behave in a rigid way, so Larry Ross would still be successful in most 21st-century organizations. 4) Assuming that you would like to become an executive in a large organization, would you be willing to do the things Ross does to achieve your goal? Why? I would not willing to do the same things Ross does to achieve my goal.
I’d rather choose the high involvement management type. I will do any efforts to impact on my employees’ attitude. I will motive them and make sure everyone is on the same page. I think when everyone has the same goal, it will be easier to get there. I also want to improve my employees’ lives outside of work, because I believe that if the are happy and comfortable with their lives, they will work more effectively. 5) Do you see Larry Ross as a person who has largely contributed to his own problems, or as a person who simply goes along with a world he did not create? Why?
I think that Ross simply just goes along with a world that he did not create. Like he said he was in various corporations. He saw how most organizations operate. With his management skill he couldn’t do anything to change those organizations. He had to adapt himself to the environment of rigid organizations. Nowadays, it’s still the problem. When we talk about organizations, immediately we think about the bureaucratic system. It’s always about the Money and Power. There’re always corruption in everywhere we go to. Hopefully, the world will be a better place in the near future.
Saint Leo University
CRJ530 Ethics in Criminal Justice
February 19, 2022
The attached memo underlines the situation and course of action in regards to Detectives Underwood and Freeman’s infiltration and intelligence gathering mission into the Ruckus society before the Democratic Republican National Convention in Miami Dade County. Since this mission features relatively under experienced detectives, as well as a potentially volatile target group, the task of setting out expectations and boundaries was prioritized. Although the gaining of trust is a necessity for all cover work, it is determined by department policies that major felonies such as armed robbery and grand theft were not proportionate to the gains associated with infiltrating Ruckus. With the implementation of federal departments, we also in good faith could not permit the use of marijuana but can stomach lesser, non-property related activities. It is the belief that Detective Underwood’s status as a woman will by her some leeway in some of these situations. Playing these risks as well as assessing when to report or play into actionable intelligence was concluded to be a priority in training due to the inexperience and make-up of the cover environment.
Memo to DRNC Undercover Agents
With the Democratic Republican National convention on the horizon and the Ruckus Society looking to infiltrate and induce protests and potentially physically violent acts , the decision has been made to insert Detectives Freeman and Underwood into their ranks and extract information about their intentions. As intimate as Freeman and Underwood will be to the Ruckus society, combined with the nature of the group as a whole, the boundaries of what behavior is allowed to accomplish the task at hand and what would cross ethical lines for this operation needs to be established. The safety of our agents is surely the main priority, but the need to establish clear but repeatable boundaries for our agents also assures the success of missions yet unknown.
The Ruckus society almost certainly participates in minor offenses within their social cliques. Theft and the consumption of marijuana are almost certainly the most common. Because of the laws in the state of Florida banning recreational use, as well as the federal ban on cannabis, we suggest avoiding the consumption of marijuana unless otherwise unavoidable ( Rosenthal, 2021). In terms of the petty theft that the Ruckus gang is believed to be frequently involved in, it is our opinion that the small scale damages or inconvenience incurred in any participation of Freeman and Underwood in these crimes are outweighed by the importance of the information gained by securing middle and high tier Ruckus gang leadership trust. It has long been decided in the world of undercover policing that it is dirty work, and some rules may have to be bent to secure disproportionately larger gains ( Watchel,1992).
What will not be perceived in the same light is the participation of more serious crimes in nature, or activities that can cause serious and lifelong bodily harm. A price tag for petty theft is not only smaller, but more contained after the fact by the department. The connection of our officers to felonies like armed robbery or grand theft is not in the nature of undercover police work ( Watchel, 1992). Our objective is to stop a series of felonies, not be complicit in them. In the same vein, Freeman and Underwood must be made aware of the fact that the cessation of all criminal activity on behalf of the Ruckus society is the final goal. If Freeman or Underwood are made aware of illegal activities, any and all action should be taken to alert their supervisor and the department can decide the course of action. Despite the fact Freeman and Underwood are being given a tremendous amount of trust, they still cannot see the whole picture from inside the ranks of the Ruckus society. Recent feedback from the surveillance of environmental protesting groups in the United Kingdom showed that information can be extracted and acted on without revealing the undercover officers (Sclembach, 2018). The department’s leadership will have to take great care in ensuring the insight is acted on in such a way as not to blow their cover, but neither Detective Freeman or Underwood determine whose rights and property are protected. If actionable intelligence can be reported safely, we high encourage them to do so whenever practical.
Before we send Freeman and Underwood into the proverbial lion’s den, the department must establish precisely what techniques and strategies they should use to not only secure their safety, but the trust of the Ruckus society members they will be with as well as the integrity of the department once our progress inevitably goes public. Primarily, Underwood and Freeman must understand that abusive police deception is dangerous for the ethical perception of the department and the criminal justice system as a whole. The unnecessary disclosure of nonvital medical information, personal facts such as family life as well as the covering up of their own secret acts is not ethical police work and is counterproductive ( Hadjimatheou, 2017). Additionally, the criteria for disclosing certain information, whether believed to be true or not, or whether to be dangerous or harmless is a serious matter for deep undercover work. The agents need to understand that the possession of intelligence leading to the prevention of a crime or an eventual arrest must go through a risk assessment ( Hadjimatheou, 2017). Is this information inherently dangerous? Does the proliferation of the intelligence make it more dangerous in nature if acted upon by the department? Such questions are key in deep cover work, as relaying information while at Ruckus camp may be difficult if not at times impossible.No more than 100 words