Managing the Performance of Individuals Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Managing the Performance of Individuals - Essay Example This paper presents a case study analysis based on â€Å"Bad bosses: The Psycho-path to Success† and examines how corporate psychopaths are challenging the success pathways of the organization. The first part of this paper presents an overview of how psychopaths operate in the business world and what strategies to be considered to identify them. The second part presents a critical examination of whether the case presents an appropriate overview of issues of corporate psychopathy. Answer- 1- How psychopaths operate in the business world? Psychopaths are those people who, due to abnormal brain connectivity and other mental disabilities, lack a conscience and exhibit few emotions and inability to have any feelings, sympathy or empathy for others or their feelings. The psychopathy is mainly caused by abnormal connectivity and chemistry in the area of amygdala of brain as this area is highly critical segment of brain for processing socially relevant information (Boddy, 2011, p. 256 ). This gives a scientific explanation for how and why psychopathy leads to socially inappropriate behavior that causes organizational losses and destruction. People who are almost psychopaths or subclinical psychopaths are found in business world as they are attracted to money and power and that they have intruded upstanding positions in corporate and in the society. Schouten (2012, p. 147) emphasized that psychopaths are not only in prisons, but also in Stock Exchanges and that they can create havoc by creating dissention in sales or other departments through their charming, manipulative, credit-stealing or colleague-blaming conducts. Voigt (2012) underscores in his article ‘Bad Bosses- the Psycho path to success’ a famous comment by Dr. Robert Hare that there are many psychopaths in the boardroom,. Organizational or corporate psychopaths are estimated to be between 1 to 5 percent of the total population (Boddy, 2006, p. 1461) and this highlights the view that one in 25 business leaders are found to be psychopaths (Morris, 2011). A study conducted by New York psychologist Paul Babiak suggested that psychopaths in the business world play with their charm and by manipulating others and thus they disguise the business conditions by hiding behind their supreme positions. Successful psychopaths are those who effectively encroach in to the highest levels of management and business leadership positions and they use their charm and manipulation to exhibit fewer transgressions. One of the most significant characteristics of psychopaths, especially in the business world, is that they have no conscience and are incapable of experiencing others’ feelings. Boddy (2006, p. 1461) described that psychopaths tend to appear to be worthy of promotion and are behaving as smooth and adroit in manipulating conversations to whatever they want to talk or justify about. Psychopaths in the business are found to be willing to put others down and are accomplished li ars. For fulfilling individual ambition or to behave with bias and prejudice, the psychopaths in the business and management levels are often ruthless and opportunistic and are calculating without remorse. Corporate psychopaths are able to get employed and to climb up the organizational hierarchy with their charm

Are the constructive trust rules affecting co-owned housing based on Essay

Are the constructive trust rules affecting co-owned housing based on the common intention of the parties - Essay Example First and foremost, intimate relations are based on trusts and this is particularly important where â€Å"individual autonomy† is ceded in reliance and trust on the perpetuation of shared goals and objectives.3 Secondly, the rules applicable to constructive trusts recognize that the intimate bond can be broken and equity will intervene to ensure that one party is not unjustly enriched to the detriment of the other.4 Thus the rules of constructive trust are designed to interpret and affect co-owned housing in circumstances where factual evidence contradicts the legally documented ownership of the house in question. The courts do not automatically interpret the mere existence of a relationship at time the house is acquired as evidence of co-ownership. The courts are guided by the concept of unconscionability and refer to the common intentions of the parties in determining what is conscionable or unconscionable. The main idea is to determine whether the common intentions of the p arties are sufficiently made out to justify a claim to co-ownership against the legal title to real property.5 Thus it is argued that the rules of constructive trusts affecting co-owned housing are based on identifying the common intentions of the parties. This paper demonstrates how the courts have relied on the identification of the common intentions of the parties to determine whether or not it would be unconscionable to enforce ownership by reference only to the legal title. The first part of this paper therefore examines and analyses the doctrinal basis of constructive trusts and the second part of this paper demonstrates how the common intentions of the parties forms the basis by which co-owned housing is interpreted under the rules of constructive trusts. The Doctrinal Basis of Constructive Trusts The result of a court finding the existence of a constructive trust is twofold. First the court may order that one party compensate another or that one party â€Å"convey a particu lar right† to another.6 It is this characterization of the constructive trust that has given way to criticisms that the constructive trust is no more than a fiction created by the courts and is not comparable to an express trust. More specifically it is argued that the constructive trust is confusing and with an unclear doctrinal basis because it interprets entirely personal matters relative to property and thus does not follow a clear and concise doctrine.7 Despite the criticisms about the nature and doctrinal basis of the constructive trust, it is based on a sound doctrine: the equitable distribution of property.8 As Hudson explains, the constructive trust serves a practical purpose. It provides a means by which the courts may imply a trust so that â€Å"justice is done on the facts before† the courts â€Å"on the basis of preventing unconscionable conduct†.9 It therefore follows that constructive trusts are not based on a doctrine that facilitates random distr ibution of property. Rather, the constructive trust is applied â€Å"to ensure that an ethical notion of good conscience is maintained in English law.†10 The House of Lords puts the doctrinal basis of the constructive trusts in its proper perspective by noting the equity has always focused on the conscience.11 Hudson argues that constructive trusts are imposed: ...on the basis of the defendant knowing of some factor which affects her conscience in