Study of Theatre’s -isms

The only form of theatre known before realism was romanticism so the world was very scared to accept the new, scary kind of plays. Especially considering that the new style was not always perfect and nice, but sometimes sad and disappointing. Realism didn't really catch on so only 20 years later, naturalism was formed. Unfortunately, naturalism did not do so well either. In the 18805-1 9005, symbolism started to appear. This was a very significant step in the life of theatre and is still very often used today. The creators of homeboys believed that reality can only be expressed indirectly and through symbols.They used many medieval symbols and religious paintings in their plays as well as allegorical signs. Around the same time period is when impressionism made it's short appearance. This movement was primarily seen in the set designs because it was believed that â€Å"artist is affected internally through external reality†. Oftentimes in plays today, you will notice a certain painting or color in the background of the set that looks random but always has a deeper, much more interesting reasoning. This all started in the asses with symbolisms and impressionism!In the years 1916-1924 is when theatre started to become more†¦ Artsy. This is when dada and surrealism became genres. Both of these focused on what was unusual and different to the audience. Dada started as a reaction to the First World War. The word â€Å"dada† itself is a made up word that means nothing. It was sought to outrage the audience into action. Sets and costumes often looked blurred together like a big mess – or they were just completely outrageous. Similarly, surrealism said that art must transcend reality by ding all arts into one single vision that suggests a harmony.Many times, there would be what seems like way too much on stage or on a costume but in surrealism, somehow it always blends together peacefully. Surrealism seems to be, in many ways, the most precedi ng of the -isms because of how prominent it still is in theatre and film. Through all of my research, have learned that theatre today is nowhere close to what is was when first created. Am sure that in the next years, theatre will continue to change even more and I cannot wait to see where it ends up when my children are my age!

Deontology Should Govern Decision Making in Business

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2 2. Decision making in business   2 3. Characteristics of deontology .   3 4. Arguments in favour of applying deontology in business   4 5. Arguments against applying deontology in business   6. Conclusion   9 References   9 â€Å"Deontology should govern decision making in business†. Discuss. 1. Introduction Boylan (2000: 2) refers to ethics as â€Å"the science concerning the right and wrong of human action†. Teleology and deontology are the two major schools of thought that dominate ethical decision-making in the context of business.Teleology refers to consequences and is founded on the principle of utility maximisation. This concept judges behaviour by its effects on the overall welfare of all stakeholders. Deontology, on the other hand, views consequences as secondary. Under this philosophy, decisions and acts are evaluated in terms of their intrinsic worth. Deontology is more demanding than teleology, because it rates decisions and acts in absolute terms. For example, even if a decision or action satisfies the rule of the majority, deontology would reject that articular option if, as a result of it, a minority of stakeholders are likely to suffer. 2. Decision making in business When business firms are charged with infractions, and when there is legal investigation on the managers of those firms, there is a concern raised about moral behavior in business. Hence, the level of trust, which is one of the foundations of the business environment, is threatened. In fact, managers often have to make decisions under economic, professional and social pressure. The decision-making process will always present ethical challenges. Is this the right thing to do?This question is the essence of the ethical dilemma for any decision maker in today’s corporations. A collection of factors will be taken in consideration in answering to this question. Is it right for the company? Is it right for the shareholder s? Is it right for the society? For the customers? For the decision maker himself? Indeed, business people have many sources of ethical theories to choose from when making decisions. Each moral system gives a unique perspective on different situations. Managers and business owners use these guidelines to act in fair and socially responsible ways.The ground rules about which a decision maker will care are hence highly dependent on the moral approach. 3. Characteristics of deontology Deontology bases itself on the intrinsic worth of the decision or act. No allowance is made for unethical conduct under this philosophy. A business manager, who accepts deontology, will hold that some moral principles are binding, regardless of the consequences. Deontological ethics is the opposite of consequential ethics. The moral person does his duty regardless of the consequences.If a manager takes a deontological approach to ethics, he defines his duty by asking â€Å"What is the universal principle to be followed? † Deontological ethics refers to an established source of ethics guidance, such as industry standard or an official code of company conduct. In fact, Immanuel Kant refined deontological ethics and posited that the nature of morality is to do one’s duty even when we are not inclined to do it, and not because we are afraid of the consequences of not doing it. Kant referred to deontology as the categorical imperative.Under this principle, a moral imperative must be categorical or absolute, providing a lasting motive to adopt a particular course of action, categorized as ‘right’ or ‘ethical’. The rationale behind the principle of deontology is that each action has intrinsic worth and unconditional value. Ferrell et al. (2008) refer to deontology as non-consequentialism, ethical formalism, or ethics of respect-for-persons. The principle of deontology states that decisions should be judged on the circumstances in which they are made, rather than by their consequences.Deontology is the study of duty. In philosophy, it means specifically ethics based on duty regardless of consequences. Deontological ethics refers to rules stated in terms of other features of the courses of action, notably whether they represent fulfillment of an agreement or other duty or right, and/or involve the treatment of others with due respect. Since human beings have free will and thus are able to act from laws required by reason, Kant believed they have dignity or a value beyond price. Thus, one human being cannot use another simply to satisfy his or her own interests.This is the core insight behind Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative: â€Å"Always treat the humanity in a person as an end and never as a means merely. † What are the implications of this formulation of the categorical imperative for business? 4. Arguments in favour of applying deontology in business The deontological theory states that peo ple should adhere to their obligations and duties when analyzing an ethical dilemma. This means that the person will take into consideration his obligations to other people involved and the society at large when taking a decision thus fulfilling his duty which is considered ethically correct.A deontologist will never break a promise made to other parties. He will never to do something that is against the law. Thus a deontologist will be very consistent in his decision making which will be based on duty of the individual. Deontology provides the basis for special duty towards other individuals like your family members. For example, older children have a special duty of protection and care for their younger siblings, in the absence of parents older children are expected to take due care of the younger ones preventing them in doing things that may cause harm to themselvesDeontology also praises those who do an act of supererogation; this is when someone exceeds his duties and obligatio ns towards other persons or the society at large. For example, in case of a fire in a building, someone may go inside the building on fire risking his own life to save the lives of others. His duty would have been to call the fire services where fireman are equipped to handle this situation but instead of waiting for the firemen , he exceeds his duty by saving other people himself. It should be pointed out that the â€Å"respect for persons† principle does not prohibit commercial transactions.No one is used as merely a means in a voluntary economic exchange where both parties benefit. What this formulation of the categorical imperative does do is to put some constraints on the nature of economic transactions. Another concern about contemporary business practice is the extent to which employees have very limited knowledge about the affairs of the company. In an economic view, a Kantian approach to business ethics terminology, there is high information asymmetry between managem ent and the employees.Wherever one side has information that it keeps from other side, there is a severe temptation for abuse of power and deception. A Kantian would look for ways to reduce the information asymmetry between management and employees. In practical terms, a Kantian would endorse the practice known as open book management. The adoption of practices like open book management would go far toward correcting the asymmetrical information that managers possess, a situation that promotes abuse of power and deception. Open book management lso enhances employee self-respect. For a Kantian, meaningful work: * is freely chosen and provides opportunities for the worker to exercise autonomy on the job; * supports the autonomy and rationality of human beings; work that lessens autonomy or that undermines rationality is immoral; * provides a salary sufficient to exercise independence and provide for physical wellbeing and the satisfaction of some of the worker’s desires; * enab les a worker to develop rational capacities; and * does not interfere with a worker’s moral development. . Arguments against applying deontology in business Management, by definition, is the planning, leading, organizing and controlling available resources to achieve goals and objectives. Hence, one of the basic functions of management, controlling, is according to Harold Koontz, â€Å"the measurement and correction of performance in order to make sure that enterprise objectives and the plans devised to attain them are accomplished†. Consequently, it is largely based on outcomes and accountability of the business.Managers are therefore required to be accountable towards achieving their objectives and one of the ways to achieve this is by analyzing whether their actions are in line with expected outcomes and henceforth modify their future decision making process accordingly. In fact, this function is considered as one of the fundamental aspect of management and deriving from this will give rise to a major shortcoming in management decisions. Relying on universalism and good will of managers will not be enough in management decision making to achieve the vision, goals and objectives set by the organisation.Deontology requires that managers’ decisions be based on duty instead of consequences and must be followed for its own sake irrespective of the outcome. Such stance is considered as inflexible. It should be noted that norms vary from culture to culture, society to society and even people to people. Consequently having a rigid stance in respect of decisions may not be the best initiative for managers. The definition of right and wrong will depend on the culture, individual or historical period.Decisions taken in particular societies might be considered as ethical while in others as non-ethical. In this context, it is easier to understand why, when faced with the requirement to select a model of how we ought to live our lives, many people ch oose the idea of ethical relativism, where that ethical principles are defined by the traditions of their society, their personal opinions, and the circumstances of the present moment. The idea of relativism implies some degree of flexibility as opposed to strict black-and-white rules.From this perspective, it is better for managers to base their decision as a result of interactions with individuals and social institutions. Moreover, by definition an organization comprise a group of people with common objectives. No organization would be able to survive without its â€Å"people† such as owners who risk their money in the business, employees who provide the mental and physical efforts required for successful working of the business or managers who are involved in the daily operations of the organization.Managers know that without its people there won’t be any organization. Hence, recognizing the stakes of such stakeholders is sometimes fundamental for the survival of th e company. Sticking to a â€Å"rule based† approach as proposed by deontology might not help in certain cases where human resource for instance is involved. Care based-theorists seek solutions to ethical challenges on a case-by-case basis. To do otherwise means applying a blunt instrument across all situations (Hovland & Wolburg, 2012).They recognize that their approach requires stepping out of a comfort zone of â€Å"infallible† rules, but because it is grounded in human relationships, their approach is more likely to find solutions based on fairness (Hovland & Wolburg, 2012). Care-based theorists assume that humans are interdependent and need others for survival (Tronto 1993), that moral reason involves the interplay between emotions and reason (Noddings 2003; Held 1993), and that moral solutions must work for people within the context in which they live (Slattery et al. n press). In 1970, Nobel Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman published an article under the provocative title ‘The social responsibility of business is to increase profits’ where he posited that the managers’ fiduciary responsibility is to make profits since it is the main reason behind the setting up of firms. He added that distancing from such objectives would simply mean a theft towards shareholders(Crane and Matten 2004).Hence, he vigorously favoured the philosophy that firms should only aim towards profit maximizing and any other responsibility can only be considered if firms achieve their main objective. If we look at the ethical egoism principle which stipulates that it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be morally right that it maximize one's self-interest, we can see that there is link between these two philosophies. Egoism differs in content from deontological theories such as Kantianism which give weight to the interests of others (Stanford Encyclopedia, 2012).Abiding to deontology in decision making and favouring any other consider ations than that of the shareholders own interests would simply mean drawing away from ethical egoism and hence would considered as a theft out of their pocket. On the other hand, Edward Freeman, who was one of the founding fathers of the stakeholder theory, challenged the idea of Friedman that the main responsibility of business was to maximize profits without any considerations for the interests of all those affected by the business, including customers, suppliers, employees, and, of course, stockholders.There are two principles underlying the stakeholder theory (Crane and Matten 2004): * Principle of corporate rights which requires that a corporation should not violate the rights of others to achieve theirs; and * Principle of corporate effect which requires that business should be accountable of the effect or impact on other parties. However, if we analyze the second principle, it is clear that it is drawn from the utilitarianism philosophy which considers morality on the basis of consequences of actions and the maximization of good to all sections of the society (Greenwood and De Cieri, 2005).Based on this principle of corporate effect, making decisions only on a sense of â€Å"duty† or universal principles may not necessarily give rise to the greatest good to the greatest number of parties and will be in contradiction to the Stakeholder Theory. 6. Conclusion The perceived weaknesses of deontological theories have lead some scholars to consider how to eliminate or at least reduce those weaknesses while preserving deontology's advantages. One way to do this is to embrace both consequentialism and deontology, combining them into some kind of a mixed theory.Given the differing notions of rationality underlying each kind of theory, this is however a difficult task. References: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford  University, Stanford,  CA  94305 http://www. bio. davidson. edu/people/kabe rnd/indep/carainbow/Theories. htm http://atheism. about. com/od/ethicalsystems/a/Deontological. htm http://www. ehow. com/about_6686029_role-business-ethics-decision- king. html#ixzz2AatMlvUJ

Objections Arising from Evil in the World Essay

The word evil is a word which can be used very loosely, usually used to describe something we think to be morally wrong, something that when in inflicted on a person causes pain and suffering. However, if an ‘evil’ act is committed by someone who has been in all other aspects good, does this act make this person ‘evil’? There are many different situations where evil acts could be done all with different circumstances and consequences. For example; at Auschwitz, so many guards were involved in the slaughter of massive amounts of Jews but it seems unlikely that all of them were evil. The actions may be considered evil but they were normalised by the sense of responsibility felt by the guards. In their eyes, they were carrying out a duty so the question of whether they are to be labelled evil is indefinite. There are two recognised categories which evil can fall under: Moral evil and Natural evil. Richard Swimburne, a modern day philosopher describes moral evil as ‘including all evil caused deliberately by humans doing what they ought not to do, and also the evil constituted by such deliberate acts or negligent failure’. It is the result of a human action which is morally wrong, such as murder or war. Natural evil is the result of apparent malfunctioning in the natural world, it is according to John Hick ‘the evil that originates independently of human actions. It is in disease, in bacilli, in earthquakes, in storms, and in droughts.’ The fact that evil, or suffering is an undeniable factor in our lives presents an array of problems in today’s world where there is a strong belief by many of a higher power which should in theory, be able to eradicate it from the world or in fact never have let it come to exist in the first place. For believers in the God of Classical Theism, this ‘problem of evil’ as it is often referred to, creates a serious dilemma. Moral evil is an easier problem to tackle for a theist than that of Natural evil, as it can be said that it occurs from the misuse of freewill, but they are still faced with justifying the existence of Natural evil. If God created the world from nothing, then there is nothing beyond His control so for whatever reason, God must be the creator of evil and suffering. A theist can sometimes be faced with justifying both types of evil as natural evils like tsunamis and hurricanes are often the cause of people committing moral evils like looting. The problem is not easily justifiable and is illustrated in ‘The Inconsistent Triad’, which states the points: God is omnipotent and omniscient (A), God is all-loving (B), and evil exists (C). These three statements cannot all be true so it would seem that one of them is false, but since we know evil and suffering exist the inconsistency must lie in one of the other 2 points. The conclusions drawn from this are that either God is not omnipotent and cannot stop evil from existing, or that God is not all-loving and chooses not to stop evil existing, or that in fact God does not exist. This can be used as an argument for the non-existence of God. A quote from Swimburne on the Problem of Evil, ‘There is a problem about why God allows evil, and if the theist doesn’t have (in a cool moment) a satisfactory answer to it, then his belief in God is less than rational and there is no reason why the atheist should share it.’ An example of the problem being used in this way is in Hume’s combat of Thomas Aquinas’ Design Argument (Summa Thelogica) where he labels the Problem of Evil as ‘The Rock of Atheism’. However, whilst being a problem for theists in that it challenges the nature of God, it also poses problems in other ways. It presents itself as a philosophical problem as it compels the believer to accept conflicting claims that are logically impossible to reconcile. It is also a diverse problem; evil manifests itself in many different ways, demanding separate explanations. The problem of evil has proved itself to be a challenging problem, as it is not just going to disappear, evil and suffering are objective realities which are almost impossible to deny. B) Unpack two theodicies and analyse which how successful these are As I said, the justification of God’s allowance for the existence of evil is not easy, but there are many theodicies which have developed that provide strong arguments. A theodicy is a theory that justifies why God allows evil without qualifying the attributes of the God of Classical Theism. Two of which are those of Augustine and Irenaeus. Augustine’s theodicy has had considerable influence over many scholars since it was developed and attempts to provide justification for both moral and natural evil. According to Augustine, the perfect God created a flawless world where evil and suffering did not exist, and that God is not responsible for the existence of evil as it is not a substance, but in fact a deprivation of good. He uses an analogy of blindness to illustrate his meaning, as blindness itself is not an entity but an absence of sight. Augustine claims that evil comes from angels and humans who have deliberately turned against God and abused his gift of freewill. He states that evil is necessary in a created world as only the uncreated creator can be perfect, his creations are susceptible to change. Augustine’s idea on the existence of Natural evil is that it exists as a punishment for the Original Sin, which we are all guilty of as we were all seminally present in Adam at the time it was committed. Natural evil punishes us for the destruction of the natural order by human action. For these reasons God is right not to intervene and the fact that he does save some through Christ emphasises His mercy. God would be justified in sending everyone to hell for being guilty of the Original Sin, the fact that some go to heaven shows God’s goodness. Augustine’s theodicy has some substantial strengths, as is proved by its popularity. Brian Davies is an example of a scholar who supports his claim that evil is only a deprivation of good rather than having a proper existence, he said it is ‘a gap between what there is and what there ought to be’. To criticise would be to say that God should have created more than he did which doesn’t make sense; how is anyone to know how much more should have been created. Augustine’s views on evil being a product of freewill have also been upheld. Despite it’s strengths, Augustine’s theodicy has many holes in it to be addressed, it contains logical, scientific, and moral difficulties. Augustine’s concept of Hell comes under scrutiny; Hell is part of God’s design of the universe, so it was created before the world’s flaws began to appear, which means that God must have anticipated and accepted that the world would go wrong. F.D.E Schleiermacher expresses his logical contradiction to Augustine’s views on the origin of evil and a perfect world going wrong, Schleiermacher informs us that whether evil is a deprivation or not it is still real and it is therefore logically impossible for it to just come out of nothing. This means that evil must be connected to God and he either never created the world perfect or he made it so it was able to falter. Another logical difficulty of this theodicy comes of the capacity to do evil in a ‘perfect’ world and disobey God, as in a perfect world no knowledge of good and evil should exist. The knowledge of them could only come from God. Scientific difficulties stem from the modern world’s concept of evolution; the idea of a perfect world being damaged by humans does not allow for evolution. Moreover, Augustine refers to the Garden of Eden in his theodicy, and this paradise is hard to accept on the basis of evolution. A final difficulty lies with the concept of us all being seminally present in Adam’s loins, this is biologically impossible so we cannot all be responsible for the Original Sin. From comparing the strengths with the criticisms we can see that Augustine’s theodicy ultimately fails. The theodicy of Irenaeus is another which provides a formidable answer to the question of why God allows evil’s existence. As said by Irenaeus, Gods aim when creating the world was to make humans in his likeness, but to do this, humans could not be made perfect but had to develop through free will. It was therefore necessary for God to give us free will and therefore necessary to give us the potential to turn against him. If he didn’t enable this, we could never attain God’s likeness as according to Ireneaus it requires willing co-operation. The natural order had to be designed in a way where humans could cause harm, which they did resulting in suffering, but God still cannot compromise our freedom by removing evil. Ireneaus claims that the evil and suffering will eventually be overcome and everyone will attain God’s likeness and reside in Heaven. This justifies temporary evil, which if complying with Ireneaus’ thought enables the understanding of good. Many philosophers have added to Ireneaus’ theodicy including John Hick (who claims that good developed from free will is better than ready-made goodness), and Peter Vardy who used an analogy of a king to illustrate this – where a king falls in love with a peasant girl but rather than imposing his power on her and forcing him to marry her, he wins her over. They both believe that without development our goodness would be without value, we would be automatons. According to this theodicy, humans had to be created imperfect to be able to go against God, and they had to be created at a distance from God so they could decide for themselves to believe in him. If we were sure he was there, there would be no free will, John Hick called this the ‘epistemic distance’. If God wasn’t separated from humans we would know he was real and would live a good, moral life because we would know that it is in our best interests, it wouldn’t be real goodness. Humans also couldn’t be created in a paradise or else qualities such as courage would not be attainable and there would be no development as good and evil would be indistinguishable. The theodicy justifies natural evil as it makes the world well adapted to ‘soul making’ (John Hick). The Modern Additions to this theodicy claim that heaven is the eventual goal for everyone for three reasons; a future in heaven is the only justification for the suffering of the world. Secondly, if life were to end in death God’s purpose would be unfulfilled since we would not be reaching our goal of becoming God’s likeness. Lastly, nobody can be overlooked as evil acts are carried out in different circumstances for different people. For example, someone who was abused while being raised is much more likely to be abusive as an adult, it is something they are used to and have become desensitised to. There are solid criticisms of Irenaeus’ theodicy as well as Augustine’s: For example, everyone going to heaven defies religious texts as well as making it pointless to live a moral life, why bother if you are going to heaven anyway? It also takes away the incentive to develop into God’s likeness which Irenaeus regarded of utmost importance. Another critique is of the level of suffering needed to make the world adapted for ‘soul making, e.g. Was the Holocaust really necessary? Finally, it can be said that love can never be expressed through suffering, supported by D.Z Philips who said it is not justifiable to hurt someone to help them. To conclude, neither of these theodicies can be considered perfect by any means, but Ireneaus is the stronger of the two. Where Augustine fails to provide room for belief in evolution, Ireneaus manages it and while Augustine cannot provide a logical explanation for the origin of evil, Irenaeus provides a stable reason for it. It is also popular, like Augustine’s for its views on free will.

Traditional Cultures Report Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Traditional Cultures Report - Essay Example Forces contributing to cultural change Modernization has been examined as a force that causes cultural change in the social structure as a culture. It is through modernization that societies have experience urbanization, industrialization and social change that transform the lives of people in the different societies. Modernization tends to be a positive force that impacts the social structure in that it is because of it that societies have moved from barbarism to civilization. However, it is also evident that modernization may have a negative impact on the social structure in terms of the destruction it causes to the traditions of the different societies. This is thought to be, as a result of, the incorporation of some aspects of westernization. It is as a result of, this that social structures have been destroyed since the indigenous cultures have been replaced by some western cultures (Sijuwade, 126). Research reveals that globalization is one of the forces that have contributed t o the changes experienced in the social structure. This can be illustrated from changes in the social structures of the different African communities. Globalization tends to have both positive and negative impacts on the social structure. It has resulted to changes in the social structure from changes in the lifestyles, thoughts and technology. ... ion is thought to have a positive impact on the social structure in that it enhanced evolution of the cultural processes of some societies through the exposure of people to different ways of thinking. It is because of some global trends that societies get to know more about each other, therefore, improving the social structure of communities as a cultural aspect (Sijuwade, 126). Reasons why the change seems inevitable The changes that have been experienced in the social structure seem to be inevitable. This is because of the increased processes of modernization and globalization. The changes in the social structures of the different societies seem to be for the best. This is because when human communities from different societies share information through global networks of information the cultural understanding is normally enhanced, therefore, resulting to an improvement in the lives of individuals within the different societies. An example of this is evident in the African society. It is evident that many changes associated with the development have taken place in the African society as a result of globalization. Despite the negative views concerning the impacts of modernization and globalization of the social structure. People should embrace the changes that have been experienced in the social structure because of the advancements they bring to the society (Sijuwade, 127). Globalization has also had an impact on the social structure of communities through the establishment of online communities. Some of the factors that have been lost include the destruction of social structures through the establishment of new identities. However, it has enhanced the acquisition of new ideas, therefore, resulting to the development of social structures (Sijuwade, 127). An

Management and Organizational Behavior Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Management and Organizational Behavior - Essay Example As a large organization that has been in business for over thirty years, they have a set of mission and core values in place. These include having high level of professionalism and service standards. All these are made possible with the correct recruitment process and retention of professionals that make up the key teams in the business. Being a cost-conscious organization, individual employees are required to account for their time spent at work. This allows the management to ensure that the efficient and effective recoverability of charges turn into profits. The managers are required to provide explanations if these are not met. However, the uneven distribution of jobs result in inaccurate recording of time charges due to the low level of work. Moreover, employees are also questioned and given demerit points if their total charge time is less than 50% on a monthly basis as the management perceive this as being unproductive. Performance appraisal occurs at individual level. These has resulted in low levels of communication, cohesion and poor performance. Different working patterns and different motivational needs exist among the teams. Although there are currently sets of guidelines and checklists available to ensure consistencies in the jobs carried out, there are still occasions when these are ignored. In addition, members of a team are required to act as a backup for one another in case any staffs go on study, maternity or holiday leave. There are also staffs that take on night classes or moonlight due to the competitive remuneration package the organization offers. To minimize the disruption or drop in the standard of work, the management must relook into job distributions that would provide optimal benefits and meet the needs of the staff at the individual and team level. Continuous training and educating the employees are essential in meeting the level of service that is expected of them, and making sure the employees are kept motivated and relevant. Task 2.1: Impact of Problems on Attitudes and Perceptions The problems that are evident in the organization are commonly shared and are influenced by the failure of management to further improve the situation. An attitude is an inclination of a person to positively or negatively react to someone or something in one's environment. On the other hand, a perception is "a process by which individuals organise and interpret their sensory impressions in order to give meaning to their environment" (Robbins et al. 2004 p. 45). Perceptions are influenced by a person's traits and background, environment and how a person looks at a situation. The uneven distribution of work creates job dissatisfaction amongst the employees and causes negative attitudes. The lack of job involvement results in low commitment to the organization that may eventually experience problems in retaining professionals. The competitive remuneration package compels low-level employees to seek alternative jobs outside of work to satisfy their needs. Thus, they are unable to give 100% of their performance at work due to fatigue, dissatisfaction and low commitment. Because these negative attitudes arise together with the inaccuracy of accounting for their time due to low volume of work, the