Compare And Contrast Different Organisational Structures And Cultures

Compare And Contrast Different Organisational Structures And Cultures Introduction Organisations are complex, social systems which seek to make the best use of people as a vital and essential resource, especially in today’s increasingly dynamic, globalised and competitive environment (Mullins, 2010: 3–9). They posses distinct identities, which are developed and shaped from a mix of how they choose to create, present and market their business to the world, the type of services and/or products provided and the culture that emerges as a consequence (Clegg et al, 2011, 14-16). Organisational structure should be driven by corporate strategy and the resulting objectives and tasks in order to facilitate the delivery of: Economic and efficient business performance; Performance management and the monitoring of activities; Accountability; Co-ordination across the business; Flexibility and adaptability providing a framework for change and innovation (Hayes, 2010: 270-282); Social satisfaction for those working within the organisation. (Fineman et al, 2010: 1-12). Therefore, organisations are systematically arranged frameworks seeking to create a unified, organic body which relates people, key business assets, knowledge and intellectual property in a design that aims to achieve specific goals (Clegg et al, 2011: 666). Basic models of organisational structure which have evolved in an effort to balance these factors are illustrated in Appendix 1. However, to be successful organisations must not operate in isolation from the environment that surrounds them (Morgan, 2006: 38–42), and some of the key aspects to consider are highlighted in Appendix 2. One of the most complex factors is that of culture – comprised of the habits, values, mores and ways of acting – by which people identify themselves and others (Clegg et al, 2011: 216). Organisational culture therefore relates to those patterns of beliefs, values and learned ways of coping with experience that have developed during the course of an organisation’s history, and which tend to be manifested in its material arrangements and the behaviours of its members (Brown, 1998: 9; Schein, 2010: 7-21). The important, though often intangible, cultural aspects of an organisation ultimately shape which levers of power and influence are the most effective in driving individual and group behaviours, ultimately affecting business performance and success (Linstead et al, :149–194). These factors are summarised in Appendix 3. In essence, culture can be regarded as being the personality of an organisation and as it shapes how people feel it is not something that can be easily managed (Stacey, 2011: 78-89). Organisational structures (particularly those imposed or developed during a period of change) that do not consider these cultural aspects can generate discontent, inefficiency, resistance and resentment from employees (Cunliffe, 2008: 45–68). Consequently, it is vital to reflect upon culture when considering organisational design as the informal structures that result are as important as the formal mechanisms and management arrangements created (Schein, 2010: 177-196). Ultimately, the decisions, actions and major developments of organisations are influenced and determined by shifting coalitions of individuals attempting to protect or enhance their own interests (Burnes, 2009: 197). Comparing organisational structures In developing the organisational designs outlined in Appendix 1, key factors must be considered which will shape the structural decisions taken. These are: Scale. Whilst larger organisations can benefit from efficiencies built around economies of scale, the greater complexity involved in managing large numbers of people with less likelihood of direct interpersonal contact often calls for more sophisticated organisational designs. Technology. This is the combination of resources, knowledge and techniques that creates an organisation’s products or services. The match between structure and technology – the technological imperative – is vital to maintain competitive advantage in modern business. For example, successful mass production operations have rigid structures built around large working groups. Environment. A successful business understands that they need to receive various inputs from the environment within which they operate and also sell their outputs into this environment. Structures therefore need to recognise factors such as global economics/markets, suppliers and competitors. Strategy. Organisational strategy – the process of positioning the organisation in its competitive environment and implementing actions to compete successfully – shapes design. Developing the organisation’s unique selling point or market differentiation by building a structure that protects and develops key competences is a critical issue if business growth is to be maintained. (French et al, 2008: 330–334) Consequently, in considering the relative merits of the structures shown in Appendix 1, the following observations can be made: Functional structure Organisations built around functional structures deliver clear task assignments which can be easily aligned to the skills and training of individuals and teams ((Stewart et al, 1999: 82-88). The structure is easy to explain to employees, suppliers and customers whilst also facilitating internal communications and problem solving as knowledge pools are recognised and shared. Importantly, such structures also assist in the development of leaders and managers as functional peers and superiors are clearly identified and should be accessible (French et al, 2008: 348). Unfortunately, such functional approaches can lead to the growth of sectional interests which may conflict with the needs of the organisation as a whole (Cole Kelly, 2011: 251). In focussing on the organisation’s functional hierarchy for direction and reinforcement, individuals and teams can lose sight of the importance of products, services or clients – the leadership is drawn into cross-functional problems (Adair, 2002: 17-25). As a consequence, conflict between functional units can increase with internal communications becoming ever more complex as they attempt to minimise such issues (French et al, 2008: 348). Product structure Large organisations with a wide product or service range are often attracted to a product-based structure as it can be more responsive to technological change as people are grouped on the basis of their expertise (and supporting infrastructure) within a particular unit (Hayes, 2010: 87-104). Such an approach also enables/supports rapid diversification and skills expansion in that additional product or service areas can be incorporated relatively easily (Cole Kelly, 2011: 251). This organisational methodology can introduce unnecessary internal competition between business units as certain product groups are promoted to the detriment of other elements of the organisation (Nadler Tushman, 1997: 71-88). Senior managers are faced with the challenge of controlling such behaviour whilst also recognising that the associated incentive and reward structures are inevitably built around the success of individual product lines (Burnes, 2009: 104–106). Geographic structure Large national or multi-national entities face significant logistical and communication challenges and this usually makes some kind of regional or area structure essential for effective decision making and control (Nadler Tushman, 1997: 59-70). Whilst this produces the benefits associated with a more decentralised approach (such as a focus on local customers and being responsive to regional market pressures), it does cause concern for senior managers seeking to set a unified corporate direction (Linstead et al, 2011: 225–226). Significant leadership and senior management effort must be spent on visiting geographically dispersed business elements in order to maintain personal relationships through face-to-face contact, thus avoiding corrosive and self-defeating internal competition (French et al, 2008: 350). Vertical specialisation The structures outlined above provide a clear separation of authority and activities on the basis of hierarchical ranking within the organisation. The chain of command created – on the basis of vertical specialisation – ensures that senior leaders plan and set the overall strategy with specific lower-level guidelines, and metrics issued for the implementation of that strategy (Morgan, 2006: 24–25, 104). Those organisations with many levels of hierarchy and control are considered as being â€Å"tall†, whilst those with only a few levels are described as being â€Å"flat† (French et al, 2008: 343). It is usually the case that the flatter structures allow greater decentralisation of decision-making and autonomy through the organisation whilst the taller structures focus on tighter, closer control mechanisms. The most effective balance for the organisation concerned must recognise the critical success factors set, the operating environment of the business and the existing corporate culture in relation to the perceived culture required (Mullins, 2010: 508–512; Stacey, 2011: 94-105). Unity of command, span of control and sensemaking As well as addressing the requirements of vertical specialisation, functional, product and geographic structures also seek to apply two key tenets of classical management theory: Unity of Command – an employee should receive orders and direction from only one superior. Span of Control – the number of people reporting to one superior must not be so large that it creates problems of communication and coordination. (Morgan, 2006: 19) These aspects are shaped by the organisations sensemaking abilities i.e. the skills and competences of managers to make sense of what they do (Clegg et al, 2011: 668). Sensemaking is a complex issue involving: Social context – considering the actual, implied or imagined views or presence of others; Personal Identity – a personal or group view of who they are (and their organisational identity); Retrospection – this is important within organisations, as sometimes the most important decisions are the least visible initially. Salient cues managers using past experiences and relating them to current scenarios in order to shape their actions and attitudes. Ongoing projects – what structure or patterns exist within the organisation to allow managers the time and space to review and reflect upon an issue and change direction or tempo if necessary. Plausibility – developing enough meaning to drive forward with a project. Enactment – The ability to react and shape or amend an evolving situation. Drafting and Doing – the ability to understand an emerging business scenario and then isolate key themes in order to understand what is going on. (Clegg et al, 2011: 22) Given these complexities, many organisations are seeking to develop mixed structures which seek to obtain the benefits potentially provided by the functional, product and geographical forms of organisation whilst also recognising the importance of these inter-personal aspects (Morgan, 2006: 50–52). Appendix 1 illustrates two models that aim to do so – Divisional and Matrix structures. Divisional structure A divisional structure seeks to overcome the problems associated with product or geographic diversity as each division can respond to the specific requirements of its product or market strategy (Johnson et al, 2011: 434). Divisional managers have greater personal ownership of their strategies and their teams, allowing for the development of competences focussed on a particular product range, technology area or customer grouping (Henry, 2011: 318–319). A divisional structure also provides significant flexibility as organisations can add, close or merge divisions as circumstances change (Johnson et al, 2011: 435). Whilst delivering a flexible and responsive organisation, a divisional structure does present a business with three key disadvantages: Divisions can become too autonomous, operating as independent businesses but introducing inefficiency by duplicating the functions and costs of the corporate centre. Personal and team identity is rooted in the division rather than the wider business, inhibiting cooperation, knowledge sharing and fragmenting expertise. Divisions can end up pursing their own strategies regardless of the needs of the corporate centre which loses control and is only able to add minimal value to the operation (Cole Kelly 2011:251–252). Matrix structure A matrix organisation seeks to overlay a horizontal structure based on products, projects, business activities or geographic area upon the more traditional vertical specialisation structure (Clegg et al 2011: 544). This introduces dual or even multiple lines of authority and responsibility in an effort to deliver flexibility in relation to the forming of project teams, improve the utilisation of resources and to encourage cross-functional cooperation (Linstead et al, 2011: 216–218). The vertical specialisation is seen as enduring, with the horizontal interaction often regarded as being temporary with the relationships dissolved as activities or projects are completed (Pettigrew Fenton, 2000: 117–143; Wall Minocha, 2010: 319–321). However, unless carefully controlled, matrix management complicates the unity of command and span of control aspects previously discussed (Morgan, 2006: 19). Without clear boundaries, organisational conflict between functional and project managers can emerge, the autonomy of line managers can be eroded and decision making becomes more inefficient leading to increased overheads (Clegg et al, 2011: 545). Organisational culture Having recognised that organisations do not operate in a vacuum and that it is important to create a structure that maximises the business return from the environment within which it operates, it is important to consider how culture (the shared ways of thinking and behaving) shapes success (Cole Kelly, 2011: 590). Eight cultural characteristics have been identified as being critical for organisational success: A bias for action – doing rather than discussing; Staying close to the customer – learning about their requirements and meeting them in full; Autonomy and entrepreneurship – being encouraged to think; Productivity through people – recognising and rewarding best efforts; Hands on – executives keeping in touch and displaying corporate values; Core competences – focussed on what you do best; Simplicity where possible – lean organisations with the fewest possible layers; Loose-tight properties – focussed on core values whilst allowing tolerance to explore and challenge. (Peters Waterman, 1982: 89-318) In shaping an organisation in an attempt to maximise the potential return from these cultural characteristics, it is sensible to recognise the origins of corporate culture which are essentially: The societal or national culture within which an organisation is physically situated. For large, multi-national organisations this introduces the challenge of understanding and incorporating different and cultural frameworks; The vision, management style and personality of an organisation’s founder or dominant leader; The type of business an organisation conducts and the nature of its business environment. (Brown, 1998: 42) Culture is therefore about an organisations history, stories, language and values rather than the application of theoretical models (Cunliffe, 2008: 55). Culture in the organisational context becomes a critical success factor because: It shapes the image that key stakeholders (including customers) have of the company and can become a crucial element of product or business differentiation within a market segment; It influences performance as a positive culture (supporting the image and success of the business) that is essential to meeting corporate goals and the requirements of the wider business environment. A negative or counter-culture – such as that which could emerge during a period of restructuring – can work against organisational effectiveness; It provides direction, as mission, vision and values statements identify where the business is going and how it plans to get there. A culture that creates a shared ownership of goals and which guides decision making can reduce the need for direct control because people know what is expected of them, how to behave and what they will be rewarded for. It can attract and retain skilled and motivated staff. Strong cultures can have a powerful effect on the behaviour and commitment of employees. (Cunliffe, 2008: 58–59) In terms of cultural analysis, three levels of review can be considered: Observable culture, often described as â€Å"the way things are done†, which are often the methods, rituals, ceremonies and symbols used to impart an organisations shared values and approaches to new members (such as within induction programmes); Shared values, often manifested through statements aimed at delivering direction and cohesion and underpinned by identifiers such as the wearing of a uniform; Common assumptions i.e. the accepted truths (often implicit and unspoken) that members of an organisation share as a result of their joint experiences. (French et al, 2008: 380–382) Attempts have been made to codify the core organisational cultures that are presented and the commonly found models are: Role Culture – focussed on rules, tasks, procedures and job descriptions; Power Culture – power exercised by a central figure with few formal rules; Person Culture – the organisation exists for the benefit of its members; Process Culture – the following of highly regulated processes; Tough-guy Culture – driven by the need to take quick decisions, underpinned by risk-taking and a competitive ethos; Work Hard/Play Hard Culture – aiming to balance performance with work-place enjoyment; Bet-Your-Company Culture – a long-term outlook built upon significant (early) investment; Bureaucratic Culture – a focus on consistency, control, efficiency and conformity; Clan Culture – focussed on commitment, involvement, teamwork and participation; Task/Mission Culture – goal oriented with rewards based on achieving mission and goals; Adaptability Culture – focussed on flexibility, innovation, risk-taking, empowerment and learning. (French et al, 2008: 394–395; Cunliffe, 2008: 65, Cole Kelly, 2011: 146-149) If strategies are to be developed that may change the structure of an organisation then it will also be necessary to potentially challenge and change the underpinning culture (Hayes, 2010: 438-447) – considering purely rational processes such as planning and resource allocation will not be enough (Johnson et al, 2011: 181). However, dangers do exist when conducting any analysis of organisational culture as it is too easy to over-simplify or even trivialise the issues involved – it is not something that can be reduced to a few traits, easily linked to performance issues or readily managed (Johnson et al, 2011: 182). Managers can shape culture through vision and value statements, supported by their own actions and expectations and this includes the organisational structure applied (Cunliffe, 2008: 67). The power levers to be applied within the organisation and the cultural interaction that results should also be considered (see Appendix 3). However, perspectives on culture will influence the corporate view as to its relevance and importance to the sustainable success of the business and these views are essentially: Integration – the culture of the organisation is relatively clear, unambiguous and straightforward; Differentiation – recognising the existence of sub-cultures within groups that are not easily identified or understood and which can inhibit change or development initiatives if not addressed; Fragmentation – no real cultural consensus can be identified around which any business strategy or organisation can be built (Brown 1998: 296-297) Summary and conclusions Ultimately, organisational design is taken forward by corporate leaders and key decision makers whose choices are based upon their own predispositions (experiences, values and beliefs) (Cole and Kelly, 2011: 256, Nadler Tushman, 1997: 21). Therefore, although decisions are overtly based upon what is seen to be the best and most efficient construct for the business, in reality cultural factors prove to be just as important. Organisational culture is the basic assumption and beliefs shared by the members of an organisation, operating unconsciously and which help to define a company’s view of itself and its operating environment (Schein, 2010:219-234). Culture may contribute to the capabilities and strategic direction/effectiveness of an organisation, but it can also stifle necessary development and evolution if internal values and mores do not reflect external changes. Organisational structures and cultural influences can therefore both inform and constrain the strategic development and ultimately the competitiveness of a business In order to maintain competitive advantage and to avoid any strategic drift (where culture and organisational factors drive the business rather than the needs of customers and key stakeholders), both should be critically reviewed and their impact considered regularly by leaders and senior managers. References Adair, J. (2002). Effective Strategic Leadership, Basingstoke: Pan Macmillan Ltd. Brown, A. (1998). Organizational Culture, 2nd Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change, 5th Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Cole, G.A., Kelly, P. (2011). Management Theory and Practice, 7th Edition, Andover: Cengage Learning EMEA. Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., Pitsis, T. (2011). Managing Organizations: An Introduction to the Theory Practice, 3rd Edition, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Cunliffe, A.L. (2008). Organization Theory, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Fineman, S., Gabriel, Y., Sims, D. (2010). Organizing Organizations, 4th Edition, London: Sage Publications Ltd. French, R., Rayner, C., Rees, G., Rumbles, S. (2008). Organizational Behaviour, Chichester: John Wiley Sons Ltd. Hayes, J. (2010). The Theory and Practice of Change Management, 3rd Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Henry, A.E. (2011). Understanding Strategic Management, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K. (2011). Exploring Strategy, 9th Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Kakabadse, A., Ludlow R., Vinnicombe, S. (1988). Working in Organisations, Aldershot: Penguin. Linstead, S., Fulop, L., Lilley, S. (2009). Management Organization: A Critical Text, 2nd Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organization, London: Sage Publications Ltd, Mullins, L.J. (2010). Management Organisational Behaviour, 9th Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Nadler, D.A., Tushman, M.L. (1997). Competing by Design: The Power of Organizational Architecture, New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Peters, T.J., Waterman, R.H. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best Run Companies, New York: Harper Row Inc. Pettigrew, A.M., Fenton, E.M. (2000). The Innovating Organization, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Schein, E.H. (2010). Organisational Culture and Leadership, 4th Edition, San Francisco: John Wiley Sons Inc. Stacey, R.D. (2011). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations, 6 th Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd Stewart, G.L., Manz, C.C., Sims, H.P. (1999). Team Work and Group Dynamics, New York: John Wiley Sons Inc. Wall, S., Minocha, S., Rees, B. (2010). International Business, 3rd Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. APPENDIX 1 MODELS AND ASPECTS OF ORGANISATIONAL

How to Swim the Freestyle Stroke

Erika Eissler February 18, 2010 How to Swim the Freestyle Stroke The freestyle is also known as the front crawl or the sidestroke. It is used in competitions but there are no real regulations on how it has to be swum. Most swimmers choose to swim front crawl during freestyle competition because it is the fastest technique. For individual freestyle competitions, however, a swimmer can use any stroke they want, but during medley competitions they cannot use the breaststroke, butterfly stroke or backstroke. The freestyle stroke involves: coordination, movement and breathing. First off, coordination is the key to successfully learning how to swim. Visualize a line running down the center of the body from the chin to the chest. This line is the axis upon which the whole body should move, and it should extend horizontally in the direction one is swimming. Keep the legs straight with the toes pointed out, and kick up and down. The secret is to continue kicking the entire time. Remain horizontal in the water. A strong kick will keep the legs from sinking behind one’s body. The kick should not make a big splash, but rather, should just churn the surface of the water. Also remember to move the arms in a windmill motion opposite of each other. While one arm is extended completely out, the other should be all the way back, almost against the side of the body. Keep the hands flat, thumb separated from the index finger and pull the extended arm through the water beneath the body. Bend the arm at the elbow and draw the fingertips along the imaginary line down the center of the body. Stretch each stroke out as much as possible without ever pausing from the windmill motion. Most importantly, remember to breathe on one side by turning the head to that side as the arm comes out of the water. After that, lift the other arm out of the water and move it all the way forward as the first arm is pulling beneath the body. Then while bending at the elbow, drag the fingertips along the surface of the water. Penetrate the water with the fingertips and completely extend the arm. As the hands are being pulled through the water, keep them cupped firmly, but not rigidly. Fingers should be held just slightly apart. These few steps are the basics of learning how to freestyle swim. It is the most basic swim style and is very commonly used. Coordination, movement and breathing are the main factors in learning how to swim. These steps will definitely increase your swimming successfulness.

Rhinoceros Beetles, Subfamily Dynastinae

Members of the beetle subfamily Dynastinae include some impressive-looking beetles with impressive-sounding names: rhinoceros beetles, elephant beetles, and Hercules beetles. The group includes some of the largest extant insects on Earth, many with impressive horns. For purposes of this article, we will use the term rhinoceros beetles to represent all members of this subfamily. Description: Rhinoceros beetles and other members of the subfamily Dynastinae are usually convex and rounded in shape (similar to lady beetles in shape, but much larger). The species that inhabit North America aren’t as large as those found in other parts of the world, but our eastern Hercules beetles (Dynastes tityus) reach a still-impressive 2.5 inches long. Identification of this subfamily requires some knowledge of beetle morphology and its associated terminology. In rhinoceros beetles, the labrum (upper lip) is hidden beneath a rounded, shield-like structure called the clypeus. Rhinoceros beetle antennae consist of 9-10 segments, usually with the last 3 segments forming a small club. For additional identifying traits of this subfamily, please refer to the details provided on the Generic Guide to the New World Scarab Beetles website. Classification: Kingdom – AnimaliaPhylum – ArthropodaClass – InsectaOrder – ColeopteraFamily - ScarabaeidaeSubfamily - Dynastinae Diet: Rhinoceros beetles and other members of the subfamily Dynastinae generally feed on decomposing vegetation (rotting wood, leaf litter, etc.) as larvae. Many adults feed on decaying plant roots underground, although some species also appear to feed on sap and fermenting fruit. Life Cycle: Like all beetles, rhinoceros beetles undergo complete metamorphosis with four life stages: egg, larva, pupa, and adult. Some species are relatively long-lived as insects go, and may take up to two years to reach maturity. Special Adaptations and Defenses: Male rhinoceros beetles often bear large horns, either on the head or the pronotum, which they use to joust with other males in battles over territory. Remarkably, recent research showed these enormous and bulky horns don’t impede the male rhinoceros beetle’s ability to fly. Range and Distribution: Rhinoceros beetles and their kin live throughout the world, with the exception of the polar regions, and are most diverse in the tropics. Scientists have described about 1,500 species to date and subdivided these into eight tribes within the subfamily Dynastinae. Sources: Borror and DeLong’s Introduction to the Study of Insects, 7th edition, by Charles A. Triplehorn and Norman F. Johnson.Subfamily Dynastinae - Rhinoceros Beetles, BugGuide.Net. Accessed July 20, 2013.Kaufman Field Guide to Insects of North America, by Eric R. Eaton and Kenn Kaufman.Dynastinae, Generic Guide to New World Scarab Beetles, University of Nebraska State Museum. Accessed July 20, 2013.Volume 1: Morphology and Systematics (Archostemata, Adephaga, Myxophaga, Polyphaga partim), by Rolf G. Beutel and Richard Leschen. Accessed via Google Books on July 20, 2013.Elaborate horns in a giant rhinoceros beetle incur negligible aerodynamic costs, Erin L. McCullough and Bret W. Tobalske, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Accessed online July 20, 2013.

Relationship Between Secure Attachment And Resilience

Attachment and Resiliency The focus of this paper is the relationship between secure attachment in children and the resiliency they may display as a result of that healthy attachment, it also looks at the negative consequences that children experience when there is a deficit in quality attachments. Attachment theory has been shown to be crucial to adaptive systems, moderating anxiety by encouraging children to feel reassured, connected, and competent (Lisa R. Jackson-Cherry, 2014, p. 16) and without a secure attachment, the results manifest in a variety of maladaptive behaviors. The emotional bond that is attachment is so critical to the development of people that the effects ripple throughout one’s life, and has been researched significantly over decades of time due to its importance in the field of psychology. Attachment theory by definition is a psychological model that attempts to define the dynamics of interpersonal relationships. Initially, attachments form early in i nfancy, are evident by 8 months, and are a major influence in people’s close relationships throughout the lifespan (Berger, 2011, p. 141). Since these attachments start in the beginning of the lifespan, the specific focus of this paper will be early childhood, approximately 8 months up to six years of age when the key factors of attachment that may affect one’s future are the most salient. If a child is allowed to develop the secure skills such as autonomy, competence, and proficiency they are moreShow MoreRelatedExplain the Importance of Resilience in Children and Young People885 Words   |  4 PagesExplain the importance of resilience in children and young people Resilience is a mixture of nature and nurture. Attributes that some children are born with, such as good intellectual ability and a placid, cheerful temperament, are associated with resilience. Children who are born prematurely and/or with disabilities, who cry and cannot be comforted, who cannot sleep or who will not accept being held are more vulnerable to adversity and may be less likely to be resilient. There are, however, manyRead MoreEthological Theory of Attachment: The Development of Emotion in Children1803 Words   |  7 Pagesï » ¿How Ethological Theory of Attachment Helps in Understanding the Development of Emotion in Children from Adversity? Introduction Attachment theory has been jointly worked out by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. In presenting this theory, both of them have drawn out ideas from the fields of ethology, cybernetics, information processing, developmental psychology, and psychoanalysts. However, John Bowlby is the chief contributor who has originated the essential tenets of the theory. Thus, he hasRead MoreDevelopment Of The Psychosocial Concept Of Socialization947 Words   |  4 Pagesthe child grows, other factors influence their social development such as peers, cultural norms, gender norms, and ideas about morals and ethics. When one examines certain criteria of the socialization process to include aspects of parenting and attachment styles, facets of cognitive development and psychosocial development, one may note how these collective experiences along with one’s ability to assimilate and accommodate can influence and facilitate either a positive or negative socialization experienceRead MoreAttachment S tyle As A Predictor For Romantic Adult Relationships Or Attachment Styles1297 Words   |  6 PagesThroughout the life span, attachment style is consistent; the theory of attachment, created by John Bowlby, describes attachment as â€Å"the lasting psychological connectedness between human beings† (McLeod). Attachment style forms during childhood through early school years and accommodates for experience and the environment we immerse in (Feeney Noller, 281). Through careful study, the three different attachment styles serve as a predictor for romantic adult relationships or attachment styles. The threeRead MoreSCMP 2 Promote The Wellbeing And Resilience Of Children And Young People1614 Words   |  7 PagesWellbeing and Resilience of Children and Young People 1.1 explain the factors that influence the wellbeing of children and young people There are many factors that influence the wellbeing of children and young people. Some of these are evident in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. A child should have the ability to have secure and nurturing attachments that offer emotional warmth and security from a care giver. This will offer security and safety to the young person. As well as secure attachments, the youngRead MoreRelation: Infant Mother Attachment and Eating Disorders1510 Words   |  7 Pages The purpose of this paper is to correlate the links between infant mother attachment and eating disorder behavior. Throughout this paper the two main theorists that are looked at are Mary S. Ainsworth and John Bowlby. Mary S. Ainsworth’s framework of attachment theory began in Uganda, while studying individual difference in infant behavior, which is known as the Strange Situation. John Bowlby coined the theory of infant mother attachment based on object relations psychoanalytical theory and theRead MoreAttachment Theory : A Psychological Model1638 Words   |  7 PagesAttachment theory is a psychological model that provides an influential, biologically dri ven explanation of how the parent-child interaction emerges and how it influences human development over a life span. The term attachment refers to the complex set of related thought processes and behaviors towards a primary care giver. The attachment behaviors are biologically guided by our natural instinct for protection and safety. This evolved behavioral system organizes human motivation, emotions, cognitionRead MoreThe Importance Of A Secure Mother Child Relationship1481 Words   |  6 Pagesbelieve that a secure mother-child relationship is highly important in the later development of a person. The influence that a mother has on her child can later lead to important aspects needed for life; these may include behavioural/social skills, cognitive abilities, emotion and even on the personality of the child. Not only can a good relationship help nurture these positive characteristics but also prevent later difficulties in life such as trauma. There are two types of attachment tha t can be categorisedRead MoreTheories Regarding Parenting Styles, Attachments, Bonds And The Relationships That Ensue1649 Words   |  7 PagesTheories abound in regards to parenting styles, attachments, bonds and the relationships that ensue. However, regardless of the theory, one subscribes to it has been noted that a child requires, warmth, security, and confidence to meet the demands of the world. Psychologists posit that how a child and their caregiver form an attachment has long-term ramifications on all the child’s relationships. The attachment formed with the primary caregiver provides the child with the expectations they will carryRead MoreHow Do Attachment Based Relationships Relate With Development, Functioning And Well Being Across The Lifespan?1851 Words   |  8 PagesClair Arnold – AT2 OCC1032 How do attachment-based relationships relate to development, functioning and well-being across the lifespan? Attachment-based relationships stem from attachment behaviour, which is conceived as any form of behaviour that results in a person attempting, or retaining proximity to some other differentiated and preferred individual, who is usually perceived as stronger or wiser (Ainsworth, 1985). These relationships have a strong connection with the development, functioning