Part 1Rank and Yank System The traditional performance management appraisal system, known as ‘Rank and Yank’ was commonly used during the 19th to 20th century. Performance evaluations were forced into a curve that placed the majority, approximately 70% of the workforce, with some employees falling above and below the average scale in the mid-range. The term ‘Rank and Yank’ was originated in the railroad industry. Workers installed steel ties for long hours. Managers measured their output by ranking each employee against one another. Companies terminated employees with the lowest productivity. While this process standardized performance expectations, the system primarily addresses past performance and demoralizes underperformers. It can also create unnecessary and unwanted competition among team members as each employee looks out for themselves. According to Barry (2014), “a forced bell curve diminishes the value of the top performers and pushes many mid-level performers into the bottom.” High performing employees do not receive the appropriate rewards and recognition deserved, and average performers demotivated. Organizations have all the control and power over employees’ advancement, leaving little opportunity for employees to drive their success and career development. Overall, traditional performance appraisal systems are not sufficient for increasing productivity in today’s workforce. Coaching and Development Systems that promote regular check-ins with their managers encourage goal achievement, professional growth, and development. Employees prefer to work collaboratively with their managers to create goals and objectives that will drive business. According to Miller, “creativity gets turned off when employees are threatened, and most feel threatened by ratings.” Ongoing coaching and feedback bring out employees’ best work. Traditional systems discourage open dialogue between managers and employees, one dimensional. It lacks employee involvement and participation. “An ideal approach to performance management would be a system of structured feedback used to manage, regulate, and improve performance,” according to Lee (2006). Coaching creates the opportunity to discuss timely and vital issues, address challenges, and make course corrections as needed. While negative information is unavoidable, constructive feedback provides specific detailed examples of how to improve and tools and resources to adjust behavior and actions. Managers are often hesitant about conflict and providing direct and honest information. Their role is to remain positive, build relationships, not pass judgment. Coaching is supportive and guides employees towards positive outcomes. Ongoing coaching increases productivity and motivation for employees to succeed. System Changes Barry (2014) establishes that the performance management system is broken. She affirms that companies should create methods that “treat high performers very well while encouraging mid-level employees to improve through coaching and development.” Coaching goes beyond fixing problems and is used to develop succession plans and pipeline of high performing teams. A 2016 Conference Board survey (Gurchiek, 2016) shows that organizations are expanding their company’s coaching culture. By including coaching into their talent development programs, communicating the importance of coaching, and creating incentives and rewards for coaching efforts. These quality discussions help to align business priorities, empower employees to increase their autonomy, and build strong relationships. In today’s changing marketplace, “employees must take ownership of their performance and act on their own to improve their capabilities,” according to Barry (2014). The shift away from annual performance appraisals to continuous feedback and coaching will drive engagement and high performing teams. It is a less formal approach to performance management that focuses on forward progress, employee development, and future success. The focus is on simple, meaningful conversations driven by employees and supported by their managers through continued coaching.Part 2Good Evening Everyone!Rank & Yank This is the course of action organizations use when after ranking the staff they keep the top 20% of workers and the bottom end of workers are let go (Performance at work, n.d.). In other words, if an employee wants to keep their position with the company their performance needs to be exceptional to make sure they rank in the top percentile of their department.Coaching & Development By implementing this process, supervisors encourage and support their employees to guide them to successfully reach their career goals. They give feedback and lead their employees in directions to improve their performance in the workplace (Training Industry, n.d.). With this type of program and/or evaluation, employees can improve their performance and receive real-time feedback on their performance and their goals. As well as how to obtain those goals.What’s the difference between Rank & Yank and Coaching & Development systems Rank & Yank is more about locating the top performers and terminating the lower performers and hiring new staff. This can become costly and still not get the results in employee performance the company wants to maintain. This method is beneficial when a company has a large staff that is not necessary. By ranking everyone and discovering the top performers from the lower performers it is easier to find who and how many to terminate to lower staff levels to where they need to be (Boudreau, 2014, February 6). Barry (2014) states in the Deloitte Insights article that many companies acknowledge that their present performance review method is not working. That the ranking and grading system can diminish the value of top performers and pushes many mid-level performers to the bottom of the scale. While coaching and development are more of taking the knowledge and skills the employees already possess and improving them through training programs and mentoring (maestro, 2019, January 3). This process will save more employees that need to just be motivated and more money is in the budget for rewards and incentives since there is less turnover. Also, coaching and development is addressed one on one and allows for a two-way conversation. Coaching and development encourage communication from both party’s thus permitting feedback to be received more easily. This method will also provide learning in an informal way and employees tend to remember better because it is more personal.Part 3 There are many different systems to measure employee performance with advantages and disadvantages to each method. Whether the approach reviews behavior or results, most strategies are built on an annual review cycle; some consist of more frequent continual discussions. According to Aguinis (2013), “performance is about behavior or what employees do, not about what employees produce or the outcomes of their work.” The one performance situation not often addressed is measuring performance for a new employee. The usual measurement systems base feedback on past twelve-month experiences and career development for employees’ future career goals. These are not effective for new hires. A measurement that links behavior and results in the early stages of employment may not be relevant. Based on my human resources experiences, the standard rankings and questions are problematic for newly hired employees. They are in the learning stages regarding their position responsibilities, company culture, and understanding what it takes to be successful in their role. Finnegan (2018) describes a stay interview as a “structured discussion a leader conducts with an individual employee to learn specific actions the leader can take to strengthen the employee’s engagement and retention with the organization.” As my organization faced increasing turnover, it was essential to develop a new set of measurements that engaged employees from their employment. We needed to determine critical success factors for employees to stay with the company. Finnegan (2020) stated that “stay interviews have helped our client companies cut turnover by 30 percent and more, all while also improving productivity, reducing errors and ultimately increasing profits”. Stay interviews are different than traditional systems that measure goals and objectives. Stay interviews should focus on increasing employees’ engagement and retention, not primarily how to improve performance. The key is to obtain valuable information about their experiences, and learnings involve manager participation. They must ensure employees are pointed in the right direction with tools and resources. As relationships begin to develop, managers must deliver clear messages that relay the importance of the employees’ role in driving individual and company’s success. The performance appraisal is not a comparative model but leans more towards absolute. Aguinis (2013) “in absolute systems, supervisors, provide evaluations of an employee’s performance without making direct reference to other employees.” In my organization, the best practice is to discuss expectations at the sixty days formally. In the first thirty days, hands-on training takes place with the distribution of policies and procedures. As our data shows, ninety days is too long to course-correct, and employees may search for another position. The manager needs to provide detailed feedback regarding the employee’s performance in a simple essay format. The process is unstructured and gives input similar to a behavior checklist. Examples include:What do you look forward to each day when you commute to work, which focuses on daily responsibilities and obstacles? What are you learning here, and what do you want to know focus on skills to build and attain? What can I do to make your job better for you for future career growth and longevity? The ‘stay interview,’ a measurement utilized for newly hired employees, engages supervisors to ask, listen, act, and communicate honestly. They can strengthen relationships with their team members and can build trust, which increases engagement and retention. Part 4General Electric (GE) is an American multination energy company that was developed over 125 years ago (Building a world that works, n.d.). As the needs of the world continues to evolve GE has developed innovative ways for renewable energy sources (Building a world that works, n.d.). In addition, GE is also a major provider for aviation and healthcare materials (Building a world that works, n.d,). Since the beginning GE has been a victim of using traditional once a year performance evaluation system. With over 7,000 employees over 12 regions they knew it was vital that all employees were able to collaborate with each other to ensure customer needs are being satisfied while costs stay low however, traditional performance review made this impossible ( Baldassaree and Finken, 2015).In 2016 GE began to implement a new method to ensure constant feedback, constant collaboration, and constant progress. Instead of using the traditional individual team method GE began to have one team to brainstorm ways to reach a specific production goal. During this time GE management can identify the strengths and weaknesses of individuals and of their team. To help with this process GE has also developed an app for their employees to use for employee recognition and corrective criticism. To me the app is a highly effective method because it allows everyone to see each other’s comments and respond to each other. It also keeps up with the advance in technology in today’s world. As a company continues to grow it is important that everyone in the organization grows as well otherwise they will be unable to meet consumer demands.
HRM 640 AU Online Rank Yank System Coaching Development & System Changes Discussion
Vrooms Expectancy Theory Of Motivation Team Members Management Essay
The objective of this report is to outline the background to Victor H. Vrooms Expectancy Theory of Motivation, one of the most renowned theories published in relation to employee motivation and organisational behaviour. The report will also account for the application of this theory in an organisational setting. From here, a critical analysis of Vroom’s theory will be conducted, in which credible academic sources will be used to form our analysis. Vroom’s expectancy theory was originally developed by Victor H. Vroom, a Canadian psychologist, in 1964. Vroom’s expectancy theory consisted of two related models-the valence model and the force model. “The valence model attempts to capture the perceived attractiveness, or valence, of an outcome by aggregating the attractiveness of all associated resultant outcomes.” (Geiger, 1996) “The force model of expectancy theory attempts to capture motivational force to act by associating the expectancy of resultant outcomes and their individual valences.” (Geiger, 1996) These two models gave Vroom the opening to build his expectancy theory to the level that it is today most commonly known. Vroom’s expectancy theory explains motivation in terms of four main concepts: force, valence, expectancy, and instrumentality. “Force refers to the compulsion of an individual to behave in a given way” (Arnold, 1998), “valence the preference for consequent reward” (Arnold, 1998), “expectancy the perceived likelihood that the behaviour will result in the intended outcome” (Arnold, 1998) and “instrumentality the perception that the intended outcome will lead to the consequent reward.” (Arnold, 1998) Force is seen as the sum of the products of multiple valences, instrumentalities and expectancies involved in a course of action. It is reasoned that the motivation to behave in a particular way is determined by an individual’s expectation that behaviour will lead to a particular outcome, multiplied by the preference or valence that person has for that outcome. This can be shown in the following mathematical equation: Motivation (M) = Instrumentality (I) x Expectancy (E) x Valence (V) (Liccione, 2007) it is assumed that the level of motivation an individual demonstrates, results from his or her conscious decision-making process: a rational assessment of the likely result of their behaviour. The theory also considers the value that each individual places on the estimated outcome. The basic theory recognises that individuals differ: that we are all unlikely to value the same outcome equally. Vroom’s expectancy theory differs from the content theories of Maslow (1943), Alderfer (1969), Herzberg (1959), and McClelland (1961). The fundamental difference is that Vroom’s expectancy theory does not provide specific propositions on what motivates an organisation’s members. Instead, Vroom’s theory provides a process of cognitive variables that reflects individual differences in work motivation. From a management perspective, the expectancy theory has some important implications for motivating employees. It identifies several important things that can be done to motivate employees by varying the person’s effort-to-performance expectancy, performance-to-reward expectancy, and reward valences. (Lunenburg, 2011). Vroom laid the conceptual foundation for expectancy in work-motivation theory. (Eden, 1988). “If a worker sees high productivity as a path leading to the attainment of one or more of his (or her) personal goals, he (or she) will tend to be a high producer.” (Victor H. Vroom) Vroom – Examination of the theory in practice The idea that people will change their level of performance/effort put into their work if they feel that they will be rewarded accordingly can be applied to many different organisational situations. The theory states that employee effort will lead to performance and performance will lead to rewards. (Isaac, et al., 2001) Intel is an example of an organisation that could be considered to follow the concept of Vroom’s theory in that they seek to treat their employees in a positive and encouraging way, and therefore manage positive outcomes. Intel is an international company that began in 1968 creating memory based products. By 1971 they introduced the first microprocessor. Figures show that in 2010 they employed 82,500 people worldwide and are one of the world’s most admired employers. Intel has a strong focus on their employees. It can be argued that they have applied Vroom’s expectancy through developing a program that’s used to attract, retain and reward the people creating the company’s long-term growth and profitability. Intel believes that to get results from employees they have to give their staff the necessary tools to perform. As the theory states there is a distinct correlation between effort and performance, if an employee believes that their efforts won’t be rewarded then they are less likely to perform. (Kermally, 2005) According to the theory it’s important to understand the level of the employee’s ability, Intel acknowledges this and also that employees operate in a dynamic and fast changing environment. For those reasons, they developed an internal Intel university which provides a comprehensive development curriculum including new employee orientation and training programmes for current employees seeking to move up the ladder and benefit from a job promotion. The university offers employees the opportunity to up-skill throughout their time with the company, whether they want to develop their management skills, improve on IT skills or learning specific information about the company. The University online database contains the latest academic resources from leadership to technology. Intel establishes the relationship between personal well-being and performance by providing staff the opportunity to attend personal development seminars. It is clear that employees will perform better when they feel better. Intel, like Vroom, sees the starting point of motivating employees begins with what they expect to get from their job. How does Intel encourage employee performance? According to Intel they see themselves as providing, ‘excellent coverage and preventive care, proactive programs, and a range of fitness resources help keep our employees healthy and happy.’ (Intel Inc., 2012) Intel takes the job satisfaction of their employees as a high priority, they have realised that there is a distinct link between job satisfaction and performance. They have integrated an employee discount program which offers employees discounts from participating hotels and restaurants. An on-site fully equipped gym also features in the Intel offices that employees can avail of whenever they wish to. Intel acknowledges the efforts of their employees through the reward schemes they have set in place to give employees incentive to take advantage of the training available to reach performance goals within the workplace. According to Vrooms theory the level of performance a person applies to their work will equal desired outcomes, pay rewards, the opportunity for promotion or company perks. (Intel Inc., 2012) Intel have taken on board that rewarding employee behaviour helps to motivate employees therefore they developed their pay, stock and benefits scheme. Annual bonuses are paid out based on the employees “bonus target”, which are specific amounts calculated from the individual’s performance. (Intel Inc., 2012) The workforce is paid out an annual “multiplier bonus” which is determined by the overall success and achievement of the company as a whole throughout the year. The incentive of commission is an on-going motivator for certain employees. Employees are set a specific target to reach, once that target is satisfied the individual reaches a portion of the overall target due to their successful level of performance. Intel offers their employees the opportunity to buy shares in the company at a lower price than market value. (Intel Inc., 2012) Similar to the bonus scheme this incentivises employees to work and perform better as the better the company as a whole do, the more shares they sell, and ultimately the employee will get a higher return on their shares. The profits the employee is helping the company achieve are returning to the employees own pocket. The different motivational elements that Intel adopts from intrinsic factors, bonuses, to extrinsic factors, job satisfaction, they all have different values to the employee. Intel have noted that it’s important to determine at the beginning of the employees career what it is in particular that the individual perceives as a suitable reward. Rewarding performance will influence performance level if the reward is effective in motivating the individual in the first place. Intel has created different links between performance and rewards for different employees depending on the skills they bring to the job and the level of their ability in achieving the task. As it is key for the success of the business, Intel has linked the right motivational reward to the right employees to be able to maximise their profits. Employees will perform better when they feel they are receiving something in return for their efforts. (Isaac, et al., 2001) People will always put a value on money. The two aspects that Intel has adopted, bonuses and shares, satisfy employee’s value for money. Intel’s application of Vrooms theory in the workplace has a direct link to the success of the company over the years. Employees have become satisfied in their work environment and in the tasks they are asked to perform due to the motivation for managers and the incentive of rewards applied to the performance they achieve. Employee performance and the use of rewards within the company have led to increased profits throughout the years and an increase in the quality and standard of the work being produced. Critical Analysis of Vroom’s Expectancy Theory Victor Vroom wrote the original expectancy theory in 1964. He identified three important expectations that individuals bring to the workplace; That effort will lead to performance, performance will lead to a further outcome, and that each outcome is perceived to have a certain value (valence). (Morley, 2004) An effective and simple description of how the theory works can be found in (Mullins, 2010) “The theory is founded on the idea that people prefer certain outcomes from their behaviour over others. They anticipate feelings of satisfaction should the preferred outcome be achieved. Much research has been done on this motivation theory and many have criticised it or attempted to improve on it. Many questions have been put forward about vroom’s theory in practice. Edward E. conducted a study that put vroom’s theory to the test; “Job attitude and behaviour data were collected over the period of a year for 69 managers in a retail sales organization. Expectancy attitudes were found to be significantly related to some measures of effort and performance. However, weighting expectancy attitudes by valence measures did not increase the ability of expectancy attitudes to predict behaviour” (Edward, 1973) Edward E. is here challenging how Vroom uses valence in his expectancy theory. Porter and Lawler (1968) extended the original expectancy theory. They also believe abilities and traits have a direct effect on performance rather than just effort on its own. Things such as natural intelligence, skills, knowledge training and personalities affect a person’s ability to perform a task. For example a naturally intelligent person would require less effort than some other people in certain tasks. From Porter and Lawler’s studies, initially their main focus was on pay. They believed that those who valued pay as a reward and tied it to their efforts put more effort into their work. Later they used further outcomes such as promotion and opportunities to use skills and abilities. (Miner, 2007). They argue against Vroom’s idea that, Motivation = effort performance expectancy x performance outcome expectancy x valence (Morley, 2004) by suggesting their model recognises that job satisfaction is more dependent upon performance, than performance is upon satisfaction. (Mullins, 2010) In addition, Porter and Lawler draw an explicit difference between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, (Morley, 2004) Vroom said that “people value the potential rewards associated with an activity”. Porter and Lawler did not think that this was enough. They felt that their idea offered more. Porter and Lawler said that people “must also believe that they are capable of carrying out that activity successfully or that the rewards that they are being promised are actually going to materialise on completion of the task” (Morley, 2004) This is a strong argument that Porter and Lawler put forward. Their work explaining this difference to Vroom’s theory is worth analysis. In Vroom’s theory, perceived effort-reward probability is not stated. Porter and Lawler argue that without this, workers will not perform the tasks adequately as; They do not believe in themselves that they can successfully complete the task and they do not believe that the rewards they have been promised will be received. Porter and Lawler explained this further, when perceived effort-reward probability is low, the individual does not have confidence in their ability to carry out the tasks or they are not confident for some reason that the rewards for carrying out the tasks will be available once the required tasks are complete. “. (Morley, 2004) They argue here that Vroom’s theory is flawed because it does not state this fact, and without it we cannot conclude in what way the workers will act. While, when the perceived effort-reward probability is high, then the individual has confidence in their ability to carry out the tasks and that the rewards will be available once the task has been completed. (Morley, 2004) Unlike The Expectancy Theory of Vroom, the Goal-Setting Theory of Locke suggests that, it is not the outcomes and rewards of task performance that causes a person to put in effort, but rather the goal itself (Sullivan, 2010). For example, if a person is given a deadline to work towards, it will encourage them to put in effort to reach that deadline/goal. The difficulty of the goal and the persons commitment combined together, will determine the effort put in. People who have difficult goals will perform better than those with easier goals because, in order to achieve the difficult goals, more effort will be required. In short, Locke believes that it is not the expected outcomes that cause good performance, it is actually the goals set by managers or individuals that cause them to work hard and perform well. Vroom believes the performance of an individual is their job effort multiplied by ability. However, in 1970 Arvey and Dunnet argued that rather than a multiplicative relationship, an additive one between ability and expectancy is a better predictor of performance. Findings appeared to be inconsistent with the variable ability, so they decided to omit it and predict it from the motivational component of expectancy theory without using an ability measure. This provides far more consistent results. The effect of omitted ability should be borne in mind as more accurate findings on job experience are obtained (Chiang, 2006). Conclusion From the following report it is clear that Vrooms Expectancy Model although created back in 1964, stills features in today’s society. It is a very popular process theory of motivation and is world famous and used by many multinational companies across the globe, just like Intel, which is described in great detail above. No theory however, is one hundred per cent perfect. Every theory will always be criticised by other theorists and even improved in some cases. Vroom has many critics of his original expectancy model and many theorists have attempted to expand it over the years, which are mentioned in the above critical analysis. Vrooms Theory has played an important role in management practice in the past, today in the 21st century and will also continue to do so in the future.
Ashford University Return on Security Investment & Loss Expectancy Discussion
programming assignment help Ashford University Return on Security Investment & Loss Expectancy Discussion.
I’m working on a management writing question and need support to help me learn.
This discussion item is part of the Analysis of Alternatives exercise.Your CISO has asked you to lead a Brown Bag lunch discussion about the costs and benefits of investments in security technologies. The reading assignment for this discussion is: Introduction to Return on Security Investment: Helping CERTs assessing the cost of (lack of) security.You have been asked to prepare a short discussion paper to be used to spark discussion amongst the attendees. Your paper must address the following:What is the ROSI calculation?How is it used to evaluate cybersecurity technologies?What are the limitations of this metric?How can this metric be used to evaluate one or more of the technologies selected for study? (refer back to Week 6)Post your three to five paragraph short paper as a response to this discussion topic. Include APA format citations and references as appropriate to the information used and the sources from which you obtained that information.
Ashford University Return on Security Investment & Loss Expectancy Discussion
The Cheating In Relationships
Cheating in relationships is a subject that often times inflicts emotion in those who encounter this situation. Male and female college students can have different outlooks in situations, so what is considered cheating in relationships would make no difference, and those who are from different age groups often times see things differently, with the younger you are the more radically the thinking style with the style being less so as a person ages. In order to determine if the statements are true a survey of seven questions was conducted to determine what age group considered to be cheating. The reality, results, is male and female college students agree for the most part what is considered cheating within a relationship, and it goes with age as well. Cheating in Relationships Relationships are complex. As we go through our lives we encounter many different kinds of relationships. The most complex relationship perhaps is our romantic relationships. In most relationships where there is commitment of only being with your partner, most would expect their partner and their partner would expect them to stay faithful. What does a partner in a relationship have to do in order to be considered faithful to their partner? Is there a difference in every relationship on what each person considers to be cheating within the relationship, or is the expectations more similar? Do males and females have different options on what is cheating in relationships? The Cheating Heart: Scientific Explorations of Infidelity by Drigotas attempts to figure out why a person decides to cheat or have an affair on the partner. Through Drigotas study he define infidelity “in the context of a dynamic relationship, represents a partner’s violation of norms regulating of the emotional or physical intimacy with people outside the relationship”. Cheating within in the relationship has lasting effects within the relationship itself, which could affect those around them if there is a child involved. Even if we personally do not know someone who has dealt with cheating within a relationship, we more than likely have watch such a situation take place in a movie, or television show. We have more than likely been in contact with this situation through reading books, magazines, or news paper articles, stories. Since there are many situations in which person maybe in contact with the situation causes many people to wonder about what others may consider cheating. Often times this conversation is spoken between partners’ to discuss the boundaries within their own relationship. (McAnulty, R. M., 2007). Method Participants The participants were forty students from Willow International Community College. There were twenty males and twenty females that participated. Of the twenty males ten were of the ages between eighteen and twenty-four, and the other ten were of the age of twenty-five and plus. Of the twenty females ten were of the ages between eighteen and twenty-four, and the other ten were of the age of twenty-five and plus. Materials A seven item questionnaire was used. Procedure I recruited participants from the Willow International Community College using the following script: Hi my name is Ashley, and I am doing a research project for my psychology. I have created a seven item questionnaire in regards to cheating in relationships. This survey is one hundred percent anonymous, and will take no more than three minutes of your time. Would you like to take the survey? Once the participants agreed to take the survey they read cheating in a relationship consists of, and then they were to finish the sentence by circling, all statements they agreed with, from a list consisting of nine different options (sexual contact, sexual intercourse, oral sex, flirting, sextenting [defined as exchanging sexual messages and or photos with someone over the internet or phone], watching pornography, kissing, emotional [defined as sharing information that should only be spoken to your partner with someone else], and video chatting with no sexual content but without partner’s knowledge: skype, webcam, facebooking, etc. and there was also a space for a write in if they found a statement that was not part of the options already listed. The survey asked the gender and age, if they were single or in a relationship, and if they have ever been cheated on, and have you ever cheated on someone. Results The results were broken down into five different categories: (1) males and females all ages and what they thought consisted of cheating while in a relationship, (2) females in the different age groups eighteen to twenty-four, and twenty-five and plus with what they thought consisted of cheating while in a relationship, (3) males in the different age groups eighteen to twenty-four, and twenty-five and plus with what they thought consisted of cheating while in a relationship, (4) males and females from the age group eighteen to twenty-four with what they thought consisted of cheating while in a relationship, and (5) males and females from the age group twenty-five and plus with what they thought consisted of cheating while in a relationship. After looking over all of the surveys I found that one male and one female over the age of twenty-five did not circle any of the options nor did they write down to what they considered to be cheating in a relationship. Males and females all ages eighteen to twenty-four and twenty-five and plus, with what they thought consisted of cheating while in a relationship. Males Females sexual contact 19 19 sexual intercourse 18 19 oral sex 18 19 flirting 4 7 sexting 18 19 watching pornography 2 2 kissing 17 19 emotional 5 11 video chatting 4 12 lying/sneaking around 0 1 watching pornography alone 0 1 dirty dancing 0 1 telling another person you love them in a romantic manner 1 0 Females in the different age groups eighteen to twenty-four, and twenty-five and plus with what they thought consisted of cheating while in a relationship. 25 18-24 sexual contact 9 10 sexual intercourse 9 10 oral sex 9 10 flirting 6 1 sexting 9 10 watching pornography 2 0 kissing 9 10 emotional 7 4 video chatting 9 3 lying/sneaking around 0 1 watching pornography alone 1 0 dirty dancing 1 0 Males in the different age groups eighteen to twenty-four, and twenty-five and plus with what they thought consisted of cheating while in a relationship. 26 years 18-24 years sexual contact 9 10 sexual intercourse 8 10 oral sex 8 10 flirting 3 1 sexting 8 10 watching pornography 2 0 emotional 3 2 video chatting 4 0 kissing 8 9 telling another person you love them in a romantic manner 0 1 Males and females from the age group eighteen to twenty-four with what they thought consisted of cheating while in a relationship. males females sexual contact 10 10 sexual intercourse 10 10 oral sex 10 10 flirting 1 1 sexting 10 10 watching pornography 0 0 kissing 9 10 emotional 2 4 video chatting 0 3 lying/sneaking around 0 1 watching pornography alone 0 0 dirty dancing 0 0 telling another person you love them in a romantic manner 0 0 Males and females from the age group twenty-five and plus with what they thought consisted of cheating while in a relationship. males females sexual contact 9 9 sexual intercourse 8 9 oral sex 8 9 flirting 3 6 sexting 8 9 watching pornography 2 2 kissing 8 9 emotional 3 7 video chatting 4 9 lying/sneaking around 0 0 watching pornography alone 0 1 dirty dancing 0 1 telling another person you love them in a romantic manner 0 0 Discussion Males and females all ages eighteen to twenty-four and twenty-five and plus, with what they thought consisted of cheating while in a relationship. The results came out to males and females agree for the most part on what consists of cheating in a relationship. The major difference between what males and females agree on what consists of cheating is in the categories of emotional cheating and video chatting with no sexual content, but without your partner’s knowledge. Only four out of forty males agreed video chatting with no sexual content, but without your partner’s knowledge was cheating, while twelve out forty females agreed this was cheating. Only five out of forty males agreed emotional was cheating on your partner in a relationship, while eleven out of forty females agreed this was cheating on your partner. Females in the different age groups eighteen to twenty-four, and twenty-five and plus with what they thought consisted of cheating while in a relationship. The results show females of both age groups agree for the most part of what consists of cheating in a relationship. The older the age group the more females agree with the listing of choices in what is considered cheating in a relationship. Males in the different age groups eighteen to twenty-four, and twenty-five and plus with what they thought consisted of cheating while in a relationship. The results show that males of the different age groups agree for the most part on what is considered to be cheating in relationships. The results show that the older the male gets the more he considers these circumstances to be cheating in a relationship. Males and females from the age group eighteen to twenty-four with what they thought consisted of cheating while in a relationship. The results show that males and females between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four agree on what is considered to be cheating in relationships. Males and females from the age group twenty-five and plus with what they thought consisted of cheating while in a relationship. The results show that for the most part males and females twenty-five and plus in agree with what is considered cheating in relationships. For continued research I would like to find out if there makes a difference if they are married, single, or in a relationship. I would like to elaborate on the research of Knox, D. where he asks if college men cheat more in relationships. I would to find out if males really do cheat more than females, and does sexual orientation make a difference, does being married lower the chance of infidelity in the research, and do males cheat more using sexual ways, while female use more emotional ways of cheating, or is there no difference. Do research to find out if it makes the more you have been a witness to cheating in a relationship if a person is more or less likely to agree with the statements listed as cheating in a relationship. Do research to find out if the more you agree with the statements the more or less likely you are to treat on your partner. In the study titled Sociosexual Orientation, Commitment, and Infidelity: A Mediation Analysis by Mattingly, B writes about the importance of finding out what causes a person to seek other people outside of their own partner, and how it is their own beliefs, experiences, and level of commitment determines if a person is going to seek others when in a relationship.
GWU WK 6 Entertainment Law Federalization of The Right of Publicity Essay
GWU WK 6 Entertainment Law Federalization of The Right of Publicity Essay.
I’m working on a law case study and need an explanation to help me understand better.
note that your papers should be 2,000-2,500 words in length. Feel free to use your own opinion if you are making a case for a specific proposition (i.e. Federalization of the Right of Publicity) You should include at minimum 5 sources that should be cited (endnotes or footnotes are fine). The attachment is the rubric. This assignment is related to what you interested in about entertainment law, my choice was Federalization of the Right of Publicity. Below is what we wrote in the semester about the Right of Publicity, if you need you can look at it.Week six: The Right of Publicity/the Right of Privacy – Should a celebrity have the right to be left alone? The Steven Tyler Law: What is it? (Hint: it’s in Hawaii! Second hint: it didn’t pass!) First law firm presentation on Paparazzi, the Right to Privacy, and more. Do we need stronger laws vs. paparazzi?Assignment: Please find one case where someone made a claim that a news report or movie or other account pictured them in a false light. Briefly write a paragraph about the claim.The former royal couple, now living in Hollywood, have filed a lawsuit for invasion of privacy. See if you can find the case. What were they complaining of? Briefly explainAssignment: Read this article arguing that the right of publicity should be left to the states: Right of Publicity Article – Pro State Control. Find a more recent article arguing that the right should be federalized. It is interesting that Copyright and Trademark are federal regimes controlled by the Federal Government, yet the right to publicity is governed by state law. Why do you think this is? Does it make any sense?Group Assignment: Your law firm should take a position on whether or not the right to publicity should be federalized or left to the states. Please write a brief paper on the issue and come prepared to debate either side of the issue!Pay careful attention as to how publicity rights are currently enforced. Are postings on social media protected by First Amendment Free Speech rights? What are the employers’ rights in monitoring employee posts? What should they be? What are SLAPP suits? We look at Aronson vs. Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc. here regarding the Michael Moore film “Sicko.”Assignment: Read Aronson v. Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc. Does the state you come from have SLAPP legislation? If it does, what does it provide? How has reality television affected the rights of privacy and rights of publicity? Find the case Miller vs. NBC here. We will discuss in class.Assignment: Carefully write down the facts of the Miller case. Note that the lower court rules against the wife but the appellate court overturns that ruling and rules in her favor. Why did they do so?
GWU WK 6 Entertainment Law Federalization of The Right of Publicity Essay
Essay Writing at Online Custom Essay
Review This Service