300 Rise Of An Empire In Hindi Full Hd Movie Download
Emmanuelle Riker
English piracy and unregulated privateering flourished in the Pacific, the Caribbean, and the Indian Ocean because of merchant elites' active support in the North American colonies. Sea marauders represented a real as well as a symbolic challenge to legal and commercial policies formulated by distant and ineffectual administrative bodies that undermined the financial prosperity and defense of the colonies. Departing from previous understandings of deep-sea marauding, this study reveals the full scope of pirates' activities in relation to the landed communities that they serviced and their impact on patterns of development that formed early America and the British Empire. About the Author Mark G. Hanna is associate professor of history at the University of California, San Diego.
For more information about Mark G. Hanna, visit the Author Page.
"Hanna's well-argued and exhaustively researched book will stand as the critical work on early modern British piracy for some time, but it is also essential reading for anyone interested in the development of the empire."--William and Mary Quarterly
In one story, The Tyrant, Trigo abdicates so that a republic can be formed, which then immediately falls apart due to corruption, so Trigo returns and is crowned emperor again before a cheering crowd. Butterworth really leans into the romantic ideal of empire. This same story is also a good example of other tropes that this series reuses again and again. Such as: (1) an emperor is drugged, hypnotized or telepathically controlled, (2) a lost underground kingdom is found beneath the earth and (3) favourite nephew Janno is the only one to escape to save the day. Halfway through the series, the episodes start to feel like cut and paste stories from an assembly line.
LinkedIn and 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
The Harvard Business Review writes that this report "explicitly counters the view held for decades that the sole focus of a corporation and its CEO is to maximize profits. Corporations are, according to the new statement, accountable to five constituencies, of which shareholders are only one. Customers, employees, suppliers, and communities are the others."
That is an incredible statement - and one which is both very welcome and inline with today's growing expectations. No longer is one group profiting at the expense of the other four; now they are all stakeholders, and that's an important perspective. But this is directly opposed to the original ideals of bureaucracy, which focuses on efficiency and benefit in only one area - and it still needs some work.
In this article I will explore business bureaucracy's rise, its challenges, and how it's failing; in a second article, I'll look at what lies beyond and how we can not only move forward, but benefit hugely doing so.
There is an onus on leadership now like never before - the market change has accelerated to the point most companies can't keep up, a new generation is becoming the majority of both workforce and customer, markets are super-saturated with companies clamouring for differentiation; sustainable innovation and disruption have taken a notable dive in recent years, people are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with being a component and taken advantage of. Traditional management models are failing both companies and employees. Individualism is being re-realised. People are demanding change and making their demands known across social media and business. A large number of organisations are stuck in the Cycle of Woe, some refusing to even admit there is a problem, and many entire industries are struggling (areas of tech, retail, banking and many more).
In The Decisive Patterns of Business I explore some reasons Leadership is facing so many challenges and what they can do to be mindful of mitigating them - so there are all the mental patterns, time limitations, and increases in complexity in business to factor in as well. I also suggest 3 ways you can immediately enhance leadership and a way you can make more accurate leadership decisions. All of these things (and much more) are intricately interlinked; this isn't an easy puzzle to solve for business, nor is it one you can do from within the frame of reference.
In Cynefin terms, Bureaucracy is often where we attempt to enforce order on unordered systems that can't be ordered, the domains of Obvious and Complicated (and weighted to the former). It is mostly rigid constraints, lack of reactivity, Best Practice, virtually no innovation or risk. Bureaucracy is where complacency-induced catastrophic failure and a lapse into chaos is most likely; it's where social complexity is most likely to be ignored, where context won't be as correctly applied or even realised. It's where you don't even see orthodoxy shifts in the market until far too late.
Many of my articles speak about the 4th Industrial Revolution (and we could be in the 6th depending on your definitions), the challenges faced, the implementation of fads, the adherence to older and ineffective models of management (process engineering, systems thinking) past where they are suitable, finding coherency in complex situations, and much more.
You can, for the purposes of this article, boil things down to this: we need to find ways to make organisations deliver better value, get better return and be leaner, act in a more (contextually) Agile fashion where appropriate, divine where they really are as a system in each situation and react appropriately; not just demand or rely on one buzzword framework but use multiple frameworks in context; and rediscover the humanity of the people who are our value and assets both. We need to move to being inspirational leaders, not instructional bosses, because the acceptance and effectiveness of the latter is fading. We need to realise the power of making everyone a stakeholder for the business to achieve its full success potential naturally - to reinvest in culture and success being mutually beneficial.
Traditionally, bureaucracy requires a rigid hierarchy adhered to as below, in descending order of size (or perceived importance) and a downward flow of strategic information/instruction. If a pipe is fouled or blocked, problems occur (and they block easily!):
Those familiar with my work will know by now there is no "easy recipe" for success - it's ALWAYS contextual. But that said, there is one thing we can do to begin exploring the facilitation of the above:
I've been told before that this is quite radical, and I guess it is, but that doesn't make it less advantageous. The fear of change, and the focus on "doing things this way because they always have been" are both powerful suppressants to changing for the better.
This is meta-innovation, if you like - the ability to innovate abstract structures, not just to conceive a new product - and this type of innovation is arguably more critical to long-term survivability for a company.
The ecosystem approach is often perceived as a lessening of power, of decision-making, but of course that isn't the case. Look at a company such as Google, which aims to reduce bureaucracy where it can and invests in investment; Google is considered powerful and fairly effective in terms of business.
I recently had a professional tell me that bureaucracy must exist because that's the only way you access leadership as a consultant - but to me, that bespeaks an avoidance of a necessary paradigm shift, instead working within a closed loop that will continue to shrink. Hierarchies don't need to be a totally rigid structure for people to function - in fact, the opposite has been proven true, and long-term, rigidity is problematic for stakeholders.
It's also worth noting that hierarchy doesn't require bureaucracy. Hierarchies can also self-regulate or define their own structures based on composition. For example, a professional team of people know their places, have individual investment, and deliver as optimally as possible; this doesn't have to be directed to the nth degree. Ecosystems take this further, and automatically regulate themselves around the decision makers - or apex predators - within them. In both these examples, over-constraint affects the whole system negatively.
In Part II, I'll give a great daily, ingrained example of how ecosystem is more effective than bureaucracy, and I'll expand on the aquarium analogy, but for now let's focus on what a bureaucracy really is.
Bureaucracy as a concept is ancient, because at its core it is rigidly hierarchical. Wherever humans wished to control other humans via systems, it existed; religiously, politically, profitably, sometimes all three at once. Via policy and tradition, it was (and still is) established.
It isn't just hierarchy; hierarchy is a complex and fluid structure within a system dependent on any number of contextual ideas. Bureaucracy is a further constraint via human management; "any system of administration conducted by trained professionals according to fixed rules" is more or less the current definition.
The German sociologist Max Weber argued that "bureaucracy constitutes the most efficient and rational way in which human activity can be organized and that systematic processes and organized hierarchies are necessary to maintain order, maximize efficiency, and eliminate favoritism."
However, Weber apparently also rightly saw unfettered bureaucracy as "a threat to individual freedom, with the potential of trapping individuals in an impersonal "iron cage" of rule-based, rational control.", something we're now seeing as a widespread mindset of decades.
Humans naturally polarise and go to extremes, especially if comfort can be attained doing so. We form mental patterns and follow traditions once established because it's simply always worked like that. Changing those traditions usually then requires either chance, or a vast upheaval.
7fc3f7cf58