Eating out Vs. Eating In Essay Example for Free

Eating out Vs. Eating In Essay Throughout the years the economy has changed drastically, putting us into a terrible recession. Gas prices have increased, taxes have increased, and many foolish, young girls are having babies that they cannot support, causing them to go on welfare, making hard working citizens such as you, and me pay for their needs. Food is an essential part of daily life. Why waste even more of my hard earned money by eating out, when I can easily save it, and be much healthier by eating in? I am on a tight budget, very family oriented, and conscious about my health, so eating at home, rather than going out is more beneficial because it’s healthier, cheaper, and more comfortable for me to be in my own environment. I don’t know about you, but to me, there is nothing better than a full wallet, a full belly, and being able to kick back, relax, and enjoy the comfort of my home. First off, eating at home is much healthier than eating out. Preparing food at home allows me to control the ingredients that I add to the meal, and I can be sure that the food and dishes are properly cleaned, since I did it myself. Being a huge germ-a-phoebe, I always wash my dishes in hot water, and use lots of soap. I find relief in knowing that only myself, and my family have used our utensils; no one else. Furthermore, I always make sure to thoroughly clean my food before I cook it, to ensure that it is not rotten, and all the bacteria is removed. I do this mostly with meats, lettuce, fruits, and vegetables. I am very conscious about my weight, and my health, so I eat in portions, grill instead of fry, and try to cut out as many carbs, sugars, and fats as I can. However, restaurants do not try to cut out any of those things. In fact, restaurant meals are often fried, and contain high sodium, oil, and fat, which can cause high cholesterol, and weight gain, making them very unhealthy. It also cuts down my options on their menu a great deal. I find it very important to eat healthy so I can keep my energy levels up, maintain a strong mind and body, and prevent myself from possibly developing any health issues in the future. Statistics show that 1 in 4 people a year, suffer from food poising caused by eating out. When I eat at a restaurant I always worry about who is touching my food, if their hands are clean, what they put in my food, or if the food is old, or cleaned properly. I also worry about the eating utensils, and if they are cleaned thoroughly. If they are not, I could be ingesting millions of germs and bacteria from a complete stranger who ate there before me. Restaurants are public places with many people inside; some of which could be ill. If I were to come in contact with them, I could easily catch their germs, and become ill as well. When I eat at home, prepare and clean my own food, and use utensils that I cleaned myself, I never have to worry about any of those health risks caused by eating out. Secondly, eating at home instead of at a restaurant enables me to cut down on my budget, and save more money. Usually, there is always food at my house. My mom always buys macaroni and cheese, soup, lunch meats, cereal, or hot pockets. Whenever I don’t have a taste for any of those things, or if there is none left, my mother and I take a five minute walk to our local Jewel-Osco, where they always have great deals. Just the other day, we bought a four pack of boneless chicken breasts, a pound of pasta, pesto sauce, mushrooms, garlic, lemons, and a 2-liter of soda, for a total of roughly $32 dollars. Restaurants, on the other hand, have to ensure on making enough money to buy more ingredients, pay their employees, pay bills, etc. , so food prices at restaurants are always higher than food I buy at the grocery store, and prepare myself. For example, when my family of four goes out to our favorite Italian restaurant, Giacomos’s, and we order the same exact meal my mother and I purchased at Jewel, it is $16 dollars a plate per person, plus $2 dollars per glass of soda, 25% of the bill as a tip for the waiter, and around $10 dollars in gas to drive there. That totals out to be around $100 dollars, meaning we save roughly $70 dollars just by eating in. A U. S. survey shows that a family can save around $2,000 dollars a year, just by eating at home. Last but not least, I am much more comfortable eating at home, rather than eating out at a restaurant for many reasons. A few years ago, I was with my friend, Sarah at Panera Bread, and a middle aged man came and sat down at a table right next to us, even though there was many empty tables further away. While I was eating, I started to tell Sarah a joke, and when I reached the punch line, we both burst out laughing, and so did the man. After that, he kept staring at me eat, while listening intently to more of our conversation. I felt very annoyed, uncomfortable, and I just wanted to leave. Sometimes restaurants are also very crowded, and noisy, and they have disgusting looking bathrooms that have toilet paper all over the floor, and they smell like rotting pee. Like I mentioned, I am a germ-a-phoebe, and I’m also claustrophobic, so it is very hard to find peace, and comfort in an environment like that. Furthermore, any time I go out to a restaurant, or in public, I always try to look my best just in case I run into a cute guy, or someone I know. This of course takes time. I have to put on makeup, do my hair, and try on a hundred different outfits until I am completely satisfied with how I look. Most of the time I’m satisfied with tight fighting clothing that squeezes my whole body, causing extreme discomfort. Yet when I eat at home, I don’t have to waste time doing any of those things. I can be a bum if I want to, and wear sweatpants. I don’t need to put on makeup, I can throw my hair up in a messy bun, and not have to worry about impressing anyone. Most importantly, I don’t have to stress out about it being too crowded or noisy in my home, since I only live with three other people. I can even sit on my couch, relax, and watch my favorite TV shows while I eat, all snuggled up, comfy, and stress free. More so, I can use my own clean, and fresh smelling bathroom without having to wait in line, or squat above the toilet seat. Can’t beat that. In conclusion, I prefer eating at home rather than eating out because it is healthier, cheaper, and much more comfortable. Not to mention much more sanitary also. I don’t have to worry about food poisoning, nosey strangers, being broke, getting ready, or being uncomfortable. Restaurants cook mainly fatty foods, charge way too much, and are usually crowded and noisy. After a long, hard day at work, I can’t wait to kick my shoes off, change into comfy PJ’s, eat a healthy dinner, and relax in my quiet, stress free house, saving time and money, while finding comfort in the privacy of my home, sweet home.

Ethics for the 21st Century Essay -- Essays on Ethics

Ethics for the 21st Century Rushworth M. Kidder has done a remarkable thing; he has assembled from all over the globe the answers of people to this question: "If you could help create a global code of ethics, what would be on it?" This act is so remarkable because he has taken the time to gather the opinions of twenty-four individuals from sixteen nations to create a global forum. What strikes me the most about his study is that the interviewees were not heads of state. They were average people viewed by their communities as ethical leaders. Kidder compiled their thoughts into a list of moral standards for the twenty-first century in his essay " Universal Human Values: Finding an Ethical Common Ground." I agree with his list of standards: love, truthfulness, fairness, freedom, unity, tolerance, responsibility and above all respect for life. The first three of these needs, "love, truthfulness and fairness," are basic human values many of us are brought up with. So important are these lessons in childhood that the drive to carry them out is a natural instinct for most adults. L...

Broken Windows Theory

What Impact has the Broken-windows Theory had on Policing? What about the Future? 02/18/2010 Question Response pg. 118 Broken-windows theory is the thought that when low levels of crime and disorder and deviance are not held in check, then more serious crime is likely to follow (Roberg, Novak, Cordner pg. 102). It was a theory proposed by J. Q. Wilson and Kelling in 1982. The broken-windows theory has had an effect on policing in the past, and will play a role in how policing is done in the future. First let’s look at how the broken-windows theory has impacted policing in the past. Broken-windows theory suggested a way of thinking in the community. Citizens felt safer when police departments conducted more foot patrols in the neighborhood, and felt the police were more aware of the crime that occurred. As time progressed into the adaptation of the motorized patrol, some people felt that the police had lost touch with the community and were not aware of the small underlying issues of the bigger crimes that occurred (pg. 66). Through the theory of broken-windows, a zero-tolerance style of policing was developed. Some police departments, such as New York, implemented the zero tolerance style and claimed that it lowered their crime rates in the mid 1990’s (pg. 103). The police became more arrest oriented and focused on a more aggressive approach to crime control. They would increase their traffic citations, arrests, and increase their contacts with citizens. However, one of the issues with the zero tolerance style of policing is that it can cause some undue harm to citizens. By being to aggressive, it leads officers to become more suspicious of some people even though they may not deserve it, and can to lead to false arrests or abuse (pg. 04). In conclusion, the broken-windows theory has created the zero tolerance style of policing, and has lead some citizens to believe that the police are not in touch with their neighborhood due to the lack of foot patrol. As cities continue to grow and expand, most police departments will not have the resources to devote some offices to foot patrol, w hile having others in vehicles to respond to other calls for service in other areas. Therefore under the broken-windows theory, departments will have to address the issue of the community not feeling safe without foot patrols. Also, understanding that if minor crime is not addressed, the potential for larger crime may follow; this will lead departments to find new strategies to address these issues. Departments will look to work with the community (community policing) in an effort to resolve the issues without delay (zero tolerance). Broken-windows theory has affected the way police departments operate since it was developed, and only through new and creative strategies can it be correctly implemented. Reference: Roberg, R. , Novak, K. , & Cordner, G. (2009). Police & society. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Broken Windows Theory The notion that serious crime is stemmed from minor disorders and fear of crime was a well-developed hypothesis in the 1980s by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling (Hinkle & Weisburd, 2006). Wilson and Kelling (1982) had coined this theory as â€Å"broken windows†. Broken windows theory states that disorder in a society causes the residents of the society to develop fear (Hinkle & Weisburd, 2008). The authors go on to state that fear is the fueling source behind delinquent behavior, which resulted in higher rates of serious crimes (2008).The main concept of this theory illustrated that if police were to target and eliminate minor disorders through community policing, it would have an overall impact on the reduction of crime rates (Gau & Pratt, 2008). Broken windows theory was not accepted by all, in fact it sparked a great deal of controversy (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). The opposing views of broken windows theory argued that it was too weak because of the lack thereof empirical e vidence proving the correlation between implementation of broken windows policing methods and decrease in crime (Harcourt, 1998).The purpose of this essay was to compare and contrast the two different perspectives on the broken windows theory. This paper shall also conclude whether the broken windows theory can be successfully used within a community policing model. In my opinion the broken windows theory had enough substantial groundwork presented that it was successfully used within community policing. To begin, according to Clyde Cronkhite (2004) the theory was true. Cronkhite connects â€Å"disorder and crime as part of a developmental sequence† (2008, p. 46). The main concept that Kelling and Wilson stated, was that if small minor disorders such as littering, public drinking, graffiti etc. were tolerated in a society than it would spiral out creating more serious crimes (Cronkhite, 2004). Cronkhite (2004) gave reasoning behind their theory stating that serious crimes ste m from criminals assuming that once there was social acceptance of minor delinquent behaviors, the community became vulnerable and were less likely to act against such behaviors. Broken windows entails a process whereby unchecked visible disorder signals to residents that community lacks social control. This assumption is that the law-abiding citizens and the criminal alike are attuned to this signal† (Gau & Pratt, 2008, p. 164). Gau and Pratt (2008) gave an explanation as to why criminals tend to flood the streets when minor disorders are present in society. The authors reasoned that it is because the general public sought shelter or safety off of the streets which in turn allowed criminals to occupy the area (Wilson & Kelling, as cited in Gau & Pratt, 2008).From personal experience in third year of University I attended a midnight street walk of downtown Toronto, which allowed me to draw on the same conclusions as Gua and Pratt. During the street walk it was clear that certa in geographical areas provided an outlet for further crime to exist based on social senses, such as Regent Park. Also, based on physical evidence that remained on George St in front of Seaton House; needles on the floor, graffiti on the walls and empty alcohol bottles not only concluded that this area was a favorable environment for crime, but that indeed some form of illegal acts had occurred.Furthermore, Gua and Pratt (2010) discussed how the perceptions of disorder in a community instilled fear into its members and how fear created social disengagement from the community. The broken windows perspective outlined the cognitive thought behind what individuals viewed as disorders (Cronkhite, 2004). In other words, disorder was always in the eye of the beholder, which in this case was the community. The way the community interpreted the delinquent behavior for example littering, determined whether the community was going to reject or accept it into their societal values.Based on the c ommunity’s decision we must consider an outsider’s perspective on such behavior as well. James McCabe (2008) goes on to talk about how it was not the physical aspect of the act (litter in itself) but rather the symbolism it created that lead to increase in crime. McCabe also stated that if individuals saw littering as a threat to social order, this threat would no longer be overlooked or considered unimportant, instead littering would be viewed as a key catalyst to a chain of negligent behavior (2008).Fear was a result of the negligent behavior, fear also generated attachment to the visible characteristics of delinquency, helping outsiders derive a negative stigma about a community (J. Irwin, personal communication, Oct 3rd, 2012). Tepperman and Curtis (2011), provided an explanation as to why crime occurs based on the social functionalist approach coined by Emile Durkheim â€Å"in order to have a well-functioning society it requires values, cohesion and social contro l† (p. 19).This theory was based on the principal that social problems are socially created (Tepperman and Curtis, 2011), the social functionalist approach supported the original work on the broken windows theory, which stated that minor disorders are classified and looked at based on individual perception (source). Structural functionalist approach established that problems in a society originate from the observation of others’ consequences (Tepperman and Curtis, 2011). In this particular case the consequences of the minor delinquent acts created greater chaos.To combat the growth in crime rates in any geographical area, â€Å"broken windows philosophy entails addressing the minor problems in a community before they create conditions that welcome and/or permit more serious offences† (McCabe, 2008, p. 291). McCabe (2008) also theorized that if you were to control the disorder you could then control the crime. The outcome this theory had on police response was tha t it created the order maintenance policing strategy (Cronkhite, 2004). This was the gateway introduction to community based policing.Broken windows theory demanded that there be community involvement (McCabe, 2008). The positive correlation between community policing and reduction of crime rates, was not necessarily in the affects the police have on the disorder itself, but rather the sense of order being restored into the community through hands on approach (Sampson & Raudenbush, 2004). When the community saw active policing, and a restored sense of community, people began to feel safer within society and were more inclined to help with community restoration initiatives (McCabe, 2008).The order maintenance strategy operated based on a community policing model, which is known as The Ontario Association of Chief of Police (OACP) Model (G. Hanna, personal communication, Sept 26th 2012). Wilson and Kelling’s theory was based on the social science experiment of Phillip Zimbardo, who had studied the snowballing effect on vandalism at the Stanford University Campus parking lot New York City in 1969, once a vacant car was left unattended to (McCabe, 2008).Kelling and Wilson (1982), indicated that disorder and crime have a strong positive correlation based on the yielded results from Zimbardo’s experiment. The first to implement the order maintenance approach was the New York Transit Authority (NYTA) (Corman & Mocan, 2005). The NYTA tackled the Subway vandalism problem head on, they eliminated graffiti, and arrested those who tried to cheat the subway fare system (Corman & Mocan, 2005). Bratton the main leader in organizing the initiative, stated that the theory was accurate (Corman & Mocan, 2005). Bratton went on to explain that there was a dramatic drop in rime rates committed in the subways following this approach, thus backing up the broken windows theory (date). After realizing the positive results of aggressive order maintenance strategy, the brok en windows theory was then put to the test by the NYPD (Corman & Mocan, 2005). The NYPD were also only reaping the benefits from this decision. Deploying this strategy had an impact on the offender’s belief that the risk of apprehension was high, thus the NYPD sent a clear message to the community that law and order prevail over petty and serious crimes (Sampson & Cohen, 1988).Immediately after the implementation of order maintenance, NYPD saw significantly decreasing numbers in serious crimes such as homicide, robbery and rape (Corman & Mocan, 2005), the city ended up reaching its all-time low. Kelling in his later work wrote, â€Å"Both experience and substantial formal research demonstrated that disorder left untended ultimately leads to serious crime†¦ Fighting disorder, by solving the problems that cause it, is clearly one the best ways to fight serious crime, reduce fear, and give citizens what they actually want from the police force†. Kelling 1999, p. 29 a s cited in Gau & Pratt, 2008, p. 167). Another Dutch researchers conducted an experiment that revealed how visible social disorder increased an individual`s temptation to indulge in delinquent behaviour (Kaplan, 2008). A Dutch researcher, Keizer tested this theory by; â€Å"placing an envelope containing a 5 euro-note hanging from a mailbox†¦ when the mailbox was clean, 13 percent of passers-by stole the envelope. When the mailbox was surrounded by trash, the percentage jumped to 25 percent, and then 27 percent when it was covered by graffiti. (Kaplan, 2008, p. 1). It was evident that the presence of litter (minor disorder) increased the rate of crime double fold. This Netherland experiment bolstered the broken windows theory (Kaplan, 2008). On the contrary, these results fueled the debate of whether the broken windows theory was the driving force behind crime reduction in the area. While researchers tried to determine the root causes to a particular crime, the macro-social ap proach shed light on crime originating from â€Å"poverty, unemployment, racism, class conflict, etc. † (McCabe, 2008, p. 92) Kennedy and Moore (1995) believed that the police did not have direct impact on these crime causing issues, therefore no direct impact on crime. Harcourt was the main author to challenge the broken windows theory. He scrutinized the theory as well as the data gathered by author Skogan, statingthat although there were several measures of serious crime (assault, sexual assault, and burglary) available in Skogan’s research, he only disclosed the findings on crime correlated to robbery (Harcourt, 1998). This made Skogan’s work discreditable and biased.Another reason why broken windows was said to be invalid is due to people`s perceptions on the relationship between crime and disorder; whether or not they are separate entities (Corman & Mocan, 2005). â€Å"If disorder and crime seem to be different in the eyes of neighborhood residents, then order maintenance policing may have a fighting chance at crime reduction. If however, the two phenomena merge into one in the minds of those residents, then broken windows theory and its accompanying order maintenance policing strategies will need to be rethought. (Gau & Pratt, 2008, p. 170). Furthermore, the main concept of broken windows theory was attacked. The idea that if disorder is not found frightening, citizens remain on the streets, therefore streets are not being opened to criminals, thus criminal behaviour would not take place (Hinkle & Weisburd, 2006). Interestingly, the studies conducted against the theory have not given much attention to the relationship between disorder and fear, which was surprising given its importance in the model. (Hinkle & Weisburd, 2006).Studies based on broken windows are too inconsistent to be able to draw a definite line as to whether or not the theory was accurate and the possibility of integration into community policing. Researchers have stated that there are statistically better predictions of crime such as community stability and collective efficacy of the neighborhood, therefore police should not focus their time into â€Å"fixing† the broken windows theory but rather dedicate their time to other predictors (Weisburd & Braga, 2007).Consequently, if police were to dedicate their time on the other factors rather than on minor disorders there would be less objectivity in regards to police involvement (Weisburd & Braga, 2007). The authors point out that although all individuals would be in favour of collective efficacy, it was hard to address and improve upon (2007). Making it easier said than done. These other statistical predictors of crime were rational and helpful in regards determining all possible causes of crime, but they were far too ambiguous of concepts to be solved through practice (Weisburd & Braga, 2007).Thus broken windows theory was a practical option, it was applicable to any community and it w as able to be implemented quickly. According to the OACP Model order maintenance policing would be considered as part of the community mobilization and crime prevention sector. This sector allows the police to take charge and impact minor disorders preventing future crime while encouraging community members to get involved, thus transitioning toward safer communities and to the ultimate goal of low need for police assistance (G. Hanna, personal communication, Sept 11th, 2012).In conclusion, the macro-social approaches, lack thereof empirical evidence, relationship between fear and disorder as well as perceptions on social disorders were the critiques made against the broken windows theory. Despite these critiques, the theory proved to be true through real life application. Therefore I draw to the conclusion that it was and continues to be successfully incorporated into the current policing model. If police services in Ontario dedicate more time to target the social disorders visible in our communities, they will help build positive relations in the community.By restoring order in our communities we are another step closer to eradicating serious crimes (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). References Corman, H. , & Mocan, N. (2005, April). Carrots, sticks, and broken windows. Journal of Law and Economics, 48(1), 235-266. doi:10. 1086/425594 Cronkhite, C. (2004, March 1). Illusions of order: The false promise of broken windows policing (Book). Criminal Justice Review (Georgia State University), 29(1), 245-248. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from http://web. ebscohost. com. subzero. lib. uoguelph. ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? id=50642dd3-c8cc-4a96-aa51-1baee6674c01%40sessionmgr114&vid=1&hid=107 Gau, J. M. , & Pratt, T. C. (2008, May 1). Broken windows or window dressing? Citizens (in)ability to tell the difference between disorder and crime. Criminology & Public Policy , 7(2), 163-194. doi:10. 1111/j. 1745-9133. 2008. 00500. x Gau, J. M. , & Pratt, T. C. (2010, August). Revisit ing broken windows theory: Examining the sources of the discriminant validity of perceived disorder and crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 758-766. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from Broken Windows Theory The notion that serious crime is stemmed from minor disorders and fear of crime was a well-developed hypothesis in the 1980s by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling (Hinkle & Weisburd, 2006). Wilson and Kelling (1982) had coined this theory as â€Å"broken windows†. Broken windows theory states that disorder in a society causes the residents of the society to develop fear (Hinkle & Weisburd, 2008). The authors go on to state that fear is the fueling source behind delinquent behavior, which resulted in higher rates of serious crimes (2008).The main concept of this theory illustrated that if police were to target and eliminate minor disorders through community policing, it would have an overall impact on the reduction of crime rates (Gau & Pratt, 2008). Broken windows theory was not accepted by all, in fact it sparked a great deal of controversy (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). The opposing views of broken windows theory argued that it was too weak because of the lack thereof empirical e vidence proving the correlation between implementation of broken windows policing methods and decrease in crime (Harcourt, 1998).The purpose of this essay was to compare and contrast the two different perspectives on the broken windows theory. This paper shall also conclude whether the broken windows theory can be successfully used within a community policing model. In my opinion the broken windows theory had enough substantial groundwork presented that it was successfully used within community policing. To begin, according to Clyde Cronkhite (2004) the theory was true. Cronkhite connects â€Å"disorder and crime as part of a developmental sequence† (2008, p. 46). The main concept that Kelling and Wilson stated, was that if small minor disorders such as littering, public drinking, graffiti etc. were tolerated in a society than it would spiral out creating more serious crimes (Cronkhite, 2004). Cronkhite (2004) gave reasoning behind their theory stating that serious crimes ste m from criminals assuming that once there was social acceptance of minor delinquent behaviors, the community became vulnerable and were less likely to act against such behaviors. Broken windows entails a process whereby unchecked visible disorder signals to residents that community lacks social control. This assumption is that the law-abiding citizens and the criminal alike are attuned to this signal† (Gau & Pratt, 2008, p. 164). Gau and Pratt (2008) gave an explanation as to why criminals tend to flood the streets when minor disorders are present in society. The authors reasoned that it is because the general public sought shelter or safety off of the streets which in turn allowed criminals to occupy the area (Wilson & Kelling, as cited in Gau & Pratt, 2008).From personal experience in third year of University I attended a midnight street walk of downtown Toronto, which allowed me to draw on the same conclusions as Gua and Pratt. During the street walk it was clear that certa in geographical areas provided an outlet for further crime to exist based on social senses, such as Regent Park. Also, based on physical evidence that remained on George St in front of Seaton House; needles on the floor, graffiti on the walls and empty alcohol bottles not only concluded that this area was a favorable environment for crime, but that indeed some form of illegal acts had occurred.Furthermore, Gua and Pratt (2010) discussed how the perceptions of disorder in a community instilled fear into its members and how fear created social disengagement from the community. The broken windows perspective outlined the cognitive thought behind what individuals viewed as disorders (Cronkhite, 2004). In other words, disorder was always in the eye of the beholder, which in this case was the community. The way the community interpreted the delinquent behavior for example littering, determined whether the community was going to reject or accept it into their societal values.Based on the c ommunity’s decision we must consider an outsider’s perspective on such behavior as well. James McCabe (2008) goes on to talk about how it was not the physical aspect of the act (litter in itself) but rather the symbolism it created that lead to increase in crime. McCabe also stated that if individuals saw littering as a threat to social order, this threat would no longer be overlooked or considered unimportant, instead littering would be viewed as a key catalyst to a chain of negligent behavior (2008).Fear was a result of the negligent behavior, fear also generated attachment to the visible characteristics of delinquency, helping outsiders derive a negative stigma about a community (J. Irwin, personal communication, Oct 3rd, 2012). Tepperman and Curtis (2011), provided an explanation as to why crime occurs based on the social functionalist approach coined by Emile Durkheim â€Å"in order to have a well-functioning society it requires values, cohesion and social contro l† (p. 19).This theory was based on the principal that social problems are socially created (Tepperman and Curtis, 2011), the social functionalist approach supported the original work on the broken windows theory, which stated that minor disorders are classified and looked at based on individual perception (source). Structural functionalist approach established that problems in a society originate from the observation of others’ consequences (Tepperman and Curtis, 2011). In this particular case the consequences of the minor delinquent acts created greater chaos.To combat the growth in crime rates in any geographical area, â€Å"broken windows philosophy entails addressing the minor problems in a community before they create conditions that welcome and/or permit more serious offences† (McCabe, 2008, p. 291). McCabe (2008) also theorized that if you were to control the disorder you could then control the crime. The outcome this theory had on police response was tha t it created the order maintenance policing strategy (Cronkhite, 2004). This was the gateway introduction to community based policing.Broken windows theory demanded that there be community involvement (McCabe, 2008). The positive correlation between community policing and reduction of crime rates, was not necessarily in the affects the police have on the disorder itself, but rather the sense of order being restored into the community through hands on approach (Sampson & Raudenbush, 2004). When the community saw active policing, and a restored sense of community, people began to feel safer within society and were more inclined to help with community restoration initiatives (McCabe, 2008).The order maintenance strategy operated based on a community policing model, which is known as The Ontario Association of Chief of Police (OACP) Model (G. Hanna, personal communication, Sept 26th 2012). Wilson and Kelling’s theory was based on the social science experiment of Phillip Zimbardo, who had studied the snowballing effect on vandalism at the Stanford University Campus parking lot New York City in 1969, once a vacant car was left unattended to (McCabe, 2008).Kelling and Wilson (1982), indicated that disorder and crime have a strong positive correlation based on the yielded results from Zimbardo’s experiment. The first to implement the order maintenance approach was the New York Transit Authority (NYTA) (Corman & Mocan, 2005). The NYTA tackled the Subway vandalism problem head on, they eliminated graffiti, and arrested those who tried to cheat the subway fare system (Corman & Mocan, 2005). Bratton the main leader in organizing the initiative, stated that the theory was accurate (Corman & Mocan, 2005). Bratton went on to explain that there was a dramatic drop in rime rates committed in the subways following this approach, thus backing up the broken windows theory (date). After realizing the positive results of aggressive order maintenance strategy, the brok en windows theory was then put to the test by the NYPD (Corman & Mocan, 2005). The NYPD were also only reaping the benefits from this decision. Deploying this strategy had an impact on the offender’s belief that the risk of apprehension was high, thus the NYPD sent a clear message to the community that law and order prevail over petty and serious crimes (Sampson & Cohen, 1988).Immediately after the implementation of order maintenance, NYPD saw significantly decreasing numbers in serious crimes such as homicide, robbery and rape (Corman & Mocan, 2005), the city ended up reaching its all-time low. Kelling in his later work wrote, â€Å"Both experience and substantial formal research demonstrated that disorder left untended ultimately leads to serious crime†¦ Fighting disorder, by solving the problems that cause it, is clearly one the best ways to fight serious crime, reduce fear, and give citizens what they actually want from the police force†. Kelling 1999, p. 29 a s cited in Gau & Pratt, 2008, p. 167). Another Dutch researchers conducted an experiment that revealed how visible social disorder increased an individual`s temptation to indulge in delinquent behaviour (Kaplan, 2008). A Dutch researcher, Keizer tested this theory by; â€Å"placing an envelope containing a 5 euro-note hanging from a mailbox†¦ when the mailbox was clean, 13 percent of passers-by stole the envelope. When the mailbox was surrounded by trash, the percentage jumped to 25 percent, and then 27 percent when it was covered by graffiti. (Kaplan, 2008, p. 1). It was evident that the presence of litter (minor disorder) increased the rate of crime double fold. This Netherland experiment bolstered the broken windows theory (Kaplan, 2008). On the contrary, these results fueled the debate of whether the broken windows theory was the driving force behind crime reduction in the area. While researchers tried to determine the root causes to a particular crime, the macro-social ap proach shed light on crime originating from â€Å"poverty, unemployment, racism, class conflict, etc. † (McCabe, 2008, p. 92) Kennedy and Moore (1995) believed that the police did not have direct impact on these crime causing issues, therefore no direct impact on crime. Harcourt was the main author to challenge the broken windows theory. He scrutinized the theory as well as the data gathered by author Skogan, statingthat although there were several measures of serious crime (assault, sexual assault, and burglary) available in Skogan’s research, he only disclosed the findings on crime correlated to robbery (Harcourt, 1998). This made Skogan’s work discreditable and biased.Another reason why broken windows was said to be invalid is due to people`s perceptions on the relationship between crime and disorder; whether or not they are separate entities (Corman & Mocan, 2005). â€Å"If disorder and crime seem to be different in the eyes of neighborhood residents, then order maintenance policing may have a fighting chance at crime reduction. If however, the two phenomena merge into one in the minds of those residents, then broken windows theory and its accompanying order maintenance policing strategies will need to be rethought. (Gau & Pratt, 2008, p. 170). Furthermore, the main concept of broken windows theory was attacked. The idea that if disorder is not found frightening, citizens remain on the streets, therefore streets are not being opened to criminals, thus criminal behaviour would not take place (Hinkle & Weisburd, 2006). Interestingly, the studies conducted against the theory have not given much attention to the relationship between disorder and fear, which was surprising given its importance in the model. (Hinkle & Weisburd, 2006).Studies based on broken windows are too inconsistent to be able to draw a definite line as to whether or not the theory was accurate and the possibility of integration into community policing. Researchers have stated that there are statistically better predictions of crime such as community stability and collective efficacy of the neighborhood, therefore police should not focus their time into â€Å"fixing† the broken windows theory but rather dedicate their time to other predictors (Weisburd & Braga, 2007).Consequently, if police were to dedicate their time on the other factors rather than on minor disorders there would be less objectivity in regards to police involvement (Weisburd & Braga, 2007). The authors point out that although all individuals would be in favour of collective efficacy, it was hard to address and improve upon (2007). Making it easier said than done. These other statistical predictors of crime were rational and helpful in regards determining all possible causes of crime, but they were far too ambiguous of concepts to be solved through practice (Weisburd & Braga, 2007).Thus broken windows theory was a practical option, it was applicable to any community and it w as able to be implemented quickly. According to the OACP Model order maintenance policing would be considered as part of the community mobilization and crime prevention sector. This sector allows the police to take charge and impact minor disorders preventing future crime while encouraging community members to get involved, thus transitioning toward safer communities and to the ultimate goal of low need for police assistance (G. Hanna, personal communication, Sept 11th, 2012).In conclusion, the macro-social approaches, lack thereof empirical evidence, relationship between fear and disorder as well as perceptions on social disorders were the critiques made against the broken windows theory. Despite these critiques, the theory proved to be true through real life application. Therefore I draw to the conclusion that it was and continues to be successfully incorporated into the current policing model. If police services in Ontario dedicate more time to target the social disorders visible in our communities, they will help build positive relations in the community.By restoring order in our communities we are another step closer to eradicating serious crimes (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). References Corman, H. , & Mocan, N. (2005, April). Carrots, sticks, and broken windows. Journal of Law and Economics, 48(1), 235-266. doi:10. 1086/425594 Cronkhite, C. (2004, March 1). Illusions of order: The false promise of broken windows policing (Book). Criminal Justice Review (Georgia State University), 29(1), 245-248. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from http://web. ebscohost. com. subzero. lib. uoguelph. ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? id=50642dd3-c8cc-4a96-aa51-1baee6674c01%40sessionmgr114&vid=1&hid=107 Gau, J. M. , & Pratt, T. C. (2008, May 1). Broken windows or window dressing? Citizens (in)ability to tell the difference between disorder and crime. Criminology & Public Policy , 7(2), 163-194. doi:10. 1111/j. 1745-9133. 2008. 00500. x Gau, J. M. , & Pratt, T. C. (2010, August). Revisit ing broken windows theory: Examining the sources of the discriminant validity of perceived disorder and crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 758-766. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from

Different Models of Change Management - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 9 Words: 2711 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Management Essay Type Critical essay Did you like this example? Introduction This paper provides a critical discussion of the different models of change management with a focus on the models proposed by Kurt Lewin (1958), John Kotter (1995) and the McKinsey 7S model (1982) developed by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman. Understanding Change Given the wide diversity in the nature and type of change experienced by individuals and organisations, no single definition of change exists. However, there is a general consensus that change is a constant feature of organisational life (Bamford and Daniel, 2005), and that it is constantly increasing in terms of its frequency, magnitude and unpredictability (Burnes, 2009). Jones (2007) defined organisational change as the way in which organisations move from one state to another to increase their effectiveness, and Greenan (2003) stated that it involves a re-distribution of power, information and skills. Similarly, Saif et al (2013) assert that effective change management is essential for organisational development and ultimately survival, and yet studies have shown that around 60% of change initiatives fail (CIPD, 2015) Signià ¯Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ cant work has been done to characterise the nature of change, the forces that drive it and the processes through which it can be achieved, and this has resulted in a number of models and theories that claim to capture change (Saif et al, 2013). All approaches, however, are dependent to some extent on the wider strategic and environmental context in which an organisation operates. According to Pettigrew et al (1992) this context is the why and when of change and takes account of the external context such as the current political, economic and social environment, and also the internal contextual factors such as organisational culture, structure and capabilities. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Different Models of Change Management" essay for you Create order Lewins 3 Step Change Model One of the most widely recognised of these change models was provided by Kurt Lewin (1958) who became the pioneer of planned change with the introduction of his three-step change model in the 1950s. The steps in this model include: unfreezing- where the current equilibrium is destabilised to allow any old behaviours to be discarded and the desired new behaviours to be adopted; moving where individuals are supported to move from less acceptable to more acceptable behaviours through different change initiatives; and re-freezing where the new behaviours become embedded in every-day practice to allow stability at a new equilibrium as shown in Figure 1: Figure 1 Lewins 3-Step Change Model Source: Carpenter, Bauer and Erdogen, 2009 According to Cameron and Green (2009), Lewins model provides a useful tool for those considering organisational change, particularly when used in conjunction with his force field analysis technique which provides a focus for management teams to debate the resisting and driving forces for change. They claim that through using this model, a team can quickly move on to identifying the next steps in the change process. However, Lewins model has attracted major criticism in that it assumes that organisations operate within a stable environment, it is a top-down approach, and fails to give consideration to issues around organisational power and politics (Burnes, 2004). In addition, its linear approach has been found to be too inflexible in certain scenarios such as in times of instability and uncertainty in the external and internal environment (Bamford and Forrester, 2003). In addition, it has been claimed that such a model is only relevant to incremental and isolated change projects which therefore makes it unable to tackle transformational change (Dawson, 1994). Kotters 8 Step Model Lewins model has been adapted and re-created in many different forms (McWhinney, 1992). In particular, the work of John Kotter (1995) can easily be mapped against Lewins model (Higgs and Rowand, 2005), but instead provides a more practical eight-step approach to change management (Todnem By, 2005). Kotter initially developed his change model by observing for-profit businesses, but it is claimed that it has applicability to public and third sector organisations also (Nitta et al, 2009). Kotters model was based upon his observations of the main mistakes made in organisations which were seeking to transform themselves and he proposed eight key steps to success (see Figure 2): Figure 2 Kotters 8 Step Model Source: Adapted from: Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2009 Within Kotters model, the different steps are: Step 1: Increase Urgency: according to Bond (2007) this first step is important in generating the activation energy to start the process of change. External pressures can help to achieve this sense of urgency such as legislative forces or threat of new competition. Kotter (1998) claimed that failure to adequately complete this step is one of the most frequent causes of failure overall. Step 2: Build the Guiding Team: with the sufficient power and influence to lead the change (Appelbaum et al, 2012). Step 3: Get the Right Vision: that clearly articulates what the change is, why it is needed and how it will be achieved. Step 4: Communicate Buy In: by telling all key stakeholders in a range of different ways the what, why and how of the change, so that they understand and support the change initiative. Step 5: Empower Action: by facilitating individuals to support the change. Successful change usually requires sufficient resources to support and empower the process (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006). Step 6: Create Short Term Wins: and giving recognition for the work done. Short-term wins provide visible evidence that the change is worth it and justified. Acknowledging these successes builds morale and momentum whilst also gaining crucial buy-in (Gupta, 2011). Step 7: Dont Let Up: consolidate the gains achieved and create further momentum by developing people as change agents (Appelbaum et al, 2012). Step 8: Make it Stick: and anchor the change within the culture of the organisation. According to Fernandez and Rainey (2006), for change to be enduring, members of the organisation must incorporate the new practices into their daily routine. Kotters model is generally considered to provide a practical and logical approach to managing change, and has been found to have a high level of appeal amongst managers with it still being used extensively today (Cameron and Green, 2009). However, despite this it has been criticised for a number of reasons. One of the key criticisms is that there is a lack of follow through and that it peaks too early (Cameron and Green, 2004). Other critics suggest that this approach is based on an often unfounded assumption that individuals will resist change (Kelman, 2005), and that where resistance does occur, there is insufficient explanation of the reasons why (King and Anderson, 2002). In addition, Sidorko (2008) argues that Kotter makes no concessions to the fact that his model is ordered sequentially and that all steps must be followed. He claims that from his study of organisational change and the use of the model, there is often a need to build multiple guiding coalitions on multiple occ asions which is something that Kotter fails to acknowledge. Both Lewins and Kotters models focus specifically on planned change and it is this factor that is the target of most criticism. It is claimed that their models are inadequate in a range of circumstances, particularly where the given change is just one of a multiplicity of changes happening within the organisation (Carnall, 2007). Similarly, other critics argue that change cannot be viewed as a linear sequence which can be applied to processes that are in reality messy and untidy (Buchanan and Storey, 1997). McKinsey 7S The McKinsey 7S Model was developed in the early 1980s by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman. It is differentiated from other change theories as instead of proposing steps that must be taken in a particular order, the framework looks at the separate elements and how well they work and interact with each other). The 7S in the model describes the seven variables, termed levers which form the framework (Peters and Waterman, 1982), as shown in Figure 3: Figure 3 The McKinsey 7S Model Source: Jurevicius, 2013 In Figure 3, it can be seen that the seven S variables include: Strategy: which is the plan that is formulated to sustain competitive advantage Structure: which is the way the organisation is structured and its reporting mechanisms Systems: are the daily activities employees undertake to get the job done Shared Values: are the organisations core values that are demonstrated in the corporate culture Style: refers to the leadership style adopted Staff: are the employees Skills: the skills and competencies of the individual employees. Shared Values are located in the centre of the model, to highlight that these are central to the development of all the other critical components, and the seven interdependent factors which are categorised as either hard or soft elements. The hard elements are easier to identify and can be directly influenced including strategy, structure and systems. The soft elements are much less tangible and are more influenced by organisational culture. One of the benefits of the model is that is can be used to understand how the different organisational elements are interconnected and so how a change in one area can impact on the others. To be effective, an organisation must have a high degree of internal alignment amongst all of the seven Ss each must be consistent with and reinforce the others (Saif et al, 2013). In addition, according to Rasiel and Friga (2002), the benefits of the McKinsey 7S model include the fact that it provides a diagnostic tool for managers to identify areas that are ineffective and combines the rational and hard elements of organisations alongside the softer, more emotional elements. Criticisms of the McKinsey 7S model, however, claim that it does not offer any guidance on how to proceed once any areas of non-alignment have been identified (Grant, 2008). In addition, Bhatti (2011) argues that the model fails to take account of the importance of resources. Without additional resources such as finance, information, technology, and the time, any change initiative cannot be effectively implemented (Higgins, 2005). Discussion According to Sidorko (2008) all of these change models have a role to play in supporting organisational change, but advises that they must be implemented cautiously and complemented with effective leadership. He claims that without such leadership, the models are merely a strict prescription for change that may not fit the organisations needs and which may result in more harm than good. He claims that instead of applying such change models prescriptively, they should instead be used selectively and adaptively to accommodate the culture and environment of the organisation. This view is supported by Graetz and Smith (2010) who claim that in practice, it may be useful to account for contextual variables and adapt chosen change models accordingly. MacBryde et al (2014) claim that change models such as those examined in this paper, are too abstract for practical application, and are generalised to the extent where they are at risk of missing the actual detail of what is happening. A further criticism of change management models in general, is that there is a lack of evaluation built into the process and yet critics claim that such evaluation is key to successful and sustainable change (Moran and Brightman, 2000). Conclusion In conclusion, this paper has provided a critical discussion of some of the most commonly cited change management models. It is evident that all three have been considered to have some practical benefit in terms of aiding the process of change in organisations and our understanding of it, and across all three models, it is clear that there is a high level of commonality amongst them. However they have all been subjected to criticism due to their abstract nature. It has been argued that they oversimplify the process of change, lack evaluation, and do not take sufficient account of the often turbulent business context and environment in which organisational change occurs. In addition, it is clear that no matter how robust the change model, it will be ineffectual unless complemented by effective leadership. It has been proposed that given this, change models such as those provided by Lewin, Kotter and the McKinsey 7S, should be used as a guide rather than a panacea, and applied flexibly to best match the culture and environment of the organisation and the nature of the change itself. References Appelbaum, S.H., Habashy, S., Malo, J.L. and Shafiq, H. (2012) Back to the future: revisiting Kotters 1996 change model, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 31 (8), pp. 764-782. Bamford, D. and Daniel, S. (2005) A Case Study of Change Management Effectiveness within the NHS, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 5 (4), pp. 391-406. Bamford, D.R. and Forrester, P.L. (2003) Managing planned and emergent change within an operations management environment, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 23 (5), pp. 546 564. Bhatti, O.K. (2011) Strategy Implementation: An Alternative Choice of 8Ss, Annals of Management Research, Vol. 1 (2), pp. 52-59. Bond, M.A. (2007) Workplace chemistry: promoting diversity through organizational change, New England: University Press of New England. Buchanan, D. A. and Storey, J. (1997). Role-taking and role-switching in organizational change: the four pluralities. In McLoughlin, I. and Harris, M. (Eds), Innovation , Organizational Change and Technology. London: International Thompson. Burnes, B. (2009) Managing Change. 5th edn. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited. Burnes, B. (2004) Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 (6), pp. 977-1002. Cameron, E. and Green, M. (2004) Making Sense of change management: a complete guide to the models, tools techniques of organizational change, London: Kogan Page Publishers. Carnall, C. A. (2007) Managing Change in Organizations. Essex: Person Education. Carpenter, M., Bauer, T. and Erdogen, B (2009) Principles of Management, Flat World Knowledge available at: Available at: https://www.web-books.com/eLibrary/NC/B0/B58/047MB58.html CIPD. (2015). Change Management, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: https://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/change-management.aspx [accessed 22 May 2015]. Dawson, P. (1994) Organizational Change: A Processual Approach. Paul Chapman Publishing: London. Day, G. and Leggat, S. (2015) Leading and managing health services, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2009) Change Management Models. Available at: https://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/strategy/deliveringservices/servicedirectories/models/changemanagementmodels/ Fernandez, S. and Rainey, H. G. (2006) Managing Successful Organisational Change in the Public Sector, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66 (2), pp.168-176. Grant, P. (2008) The productive ward round: a critical analysis of organisational change, The International Journal of Clinical Leadership, Vol.16 (4), pp. 193-201. Graetz, F. and Smith, A.C.T. (2010), Managing organizational change: a philosophies of change approach, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 10 (2), pp. 135-154. Greenan, N. (2003) Organisational change, technology, employment and skills: an empirical study of French manufacturing, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 27 (2), pp. 287-316. Gupta, P. (2011) Leading Innovation Change The Kotter Way, International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 3 (3), pp. 141-149. Higgs, M. and Rowland, D. (2005) All Changes Great and Small: Exploring Approaches to Change and its Leadership, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 5 (2), pp.121-151. Higgins. J.M. (2005) The Eight Ss of Successful Strategy Execution, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 5 (1), pp. 3-13. Jones, G.R. (2007) Organisational Theory, Design, and Change, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Jurevicius, O. (2013) McKinsey 7s Model. Available at: https://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/mckinsey-7s-model-framework.html Kelman, S. (2005) Unleashing change: A study of organizational renewal in government, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. King, M. and Anderson, N. (2002) Managing Innovation and Change, Sydney: Thomson. Kotter, J.P. (1995) Leading Change: Why Transformation Effort s Fail, Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 59-67. Kotter, J.P. (1998) Winning at Change, Leader to Leader, Vol.10, pp.27-33. Lewin, K. (1958) Group decisions and social change. In Swanson, G.E., Newcomb, T.M. and Nartley, E.L. (Eds), Readings in Social Psychology, Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, New York, NY. MacBryde, J., Paton, S., Bayliss, M. and Grant, N. (2014) Transformation in the defence sector: The critical role of performance measurement, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 25 (2), pp. 157-172. McWhinney, W. (1992) Paths of change, Newbury Park: Sage. Moran, J. and Brightman, B. (2000), Leading organisational change, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 12 (2), pp. 66-74. Nitta, K.A., Wrobel, S.L., Howard, J.Y. and Jimmerson-Eddings, E. (2009) Leading Change of a School District Reorganization, Public Performance and Management Review, Vol.32 (3), pp. 463-488. Peters, T. and Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. New York, NY: Harper and Rowe. Pettigrew, A.,Ferlie, E. McKee, L. (1992). Shaping strategic change: making change in large organizations, the case of the National Health Service. London: Sage. Rasiel, E.M. and Friga, P.N. (2002) The McKinsey Mind, US: McGraw-Hill. Saif, N., Razzaq, N., Rehman, S.U., Javed, A. and Ahmad, B. (2013) The concept of change management in todays business world, Information and Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 (6), pp. 28-33. Sidorko, P.E. (2008), Transforming library and higher education support services: can change models help?, Library Management, Vol. 29 (4/5), pp. 307-318. Todnem By, R. (2005) Organisational Change Management: A Critical Review, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 5 (4), pp. 369-380.