Employee Engagemet Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Employee Engagemet - Essay Example Various strategies and tactics which focus on eliciting employee Engagement have been massively influenced by the intensive research of various organizational scholars and researchers. According to Armstrong & Baron (2000), the optimum level of skill, task variety, significance of the task and task identity which has brought along the state of employee engagement is directly connected with the concept of job enrichment. From the perspective of employee engagement, an organization needs its company managers to define specific organizational goals and objectives which are realistic and vivid and are achievable. To constantly engage employees and make them feel a part of the company, an organization has to appreciate their publicly if their employees have been to achieve the company objectives and should train and develop employees who have been unable to demonstrate satisfactory performance (Cartwright & Holmes, 2006). One of the key components of an elicit employee engagement strategy is that they should be able to clearly communicate an organization’s strategy and should also help in fostering healthy relationships with their employees. A company must be able to clearly demonstrate how important the consistent performance of their employees is to the company and have to prove that its employees have been valued as valuable contributors to the company’s operational activities and should also provide them with a sense of empowerment (Zadek, 2001). Employee voice - An employee’s view regarding the overall significance of his job and his organization has a much more significant influence on his customer service and loyalty towards his organization, in comparison with all the other employee factors. Engaging managers. One of the most important tool for managers for improving employee performance is communication and staff engagement. In order to provide the employees with a sense of

A Study of Aristotelian tragedy in Oedipus Essay

A Study of Aristotelian tragedy in Oedipus - Essay Example One of Aristotle’s most influential works concerning literary theory is his Poetics. In it he articulates with eloquence and clarity various facets of good theatre. Tragedy is acknowledged as a powerful genre of drama. Aristotle goes on to set out various rules of thumb for making aesthetically and emotionally satisfying tragedies. His concise definition of tragedy is that it is â€Å"an imitation of an action that is serious ... with incidents arousing pity and fear, in order to accomplish the catharsis of such emotions." (Botton 20) He was in opposition to Plato’s critical and disparaging view of theater. Plato had earlier set the debate rolling in The Republic, stating that poets and other artists should be banned from civil society because they induced excessive emotional responses in audiences which countered calm reasoning. Aristotle rebutted this assertion in Poetics, stating that â€Å"although watching tragedies raised emotions, it also purged them. An audien ce would come away from Oedipus humbled, keen to be better and wiser.† (Botton 20) In many ways, Oedipus satisfies the Aristotelian conception of the tragic hero. For example, the tragic hero is someone who feels responsible for his actions and is conscious of ethical merits and demerits associated with them. In Sophocles’ Oedipus, we see that the author does not contemplate either the acknowledgement of guilt or the blinding. Instead, â€Å"awareness and blinding will be present in Aeschylus because his Oedipus must not see both 'what he suffered and the bad he did'. According to the author, the individual responsibility celebrated by tragedy is the expression of a people who do not tell history any more, but are aware of making it: a process that Plato could not-or did not want to-recognize, claiming to read tragedy like the continuation of old myths and of old stories, rather than like a new way to tell them again, to involve oneself and to involve us with them in a different way.† ... ould not-or did not want to-recognize, claiming to read tragedy like the continuation of old myths and of old stories, rather than like a new way to tell them again, to involve oneself and to involve us with them in a different way.† (Goretti 1305) What we also witness in Oedipus is a dimension of the tragic hero engaged in praxis. In Aristotle’s conception of tragedy there is an underlying conflict between ‘absolute necessity’ and ‘freedom’. This is amply evident in crucial life events of Oedipus, who, as the story progresses, is compelled to implement his own demise. For Aristotle, tragedy allows Greeks â€Å"to bear the unbearable contradiction that for thought would remain incomprehensible: 'the attestation, even in the loss of freedom, of this same freedom'†. (Goretti 1306)Though we do not find direct mention of concepts such as ‘will’ and ‘responsibility’ in the Poetics, â€Å"when Aristotle must indicate the ones who act the tragic action, for him 'hoi prattonese' is not sufficient, but he adds 'kai drontes'. The problem of freedom involves the problem of evil: the evil one does, the evil one suffers or the evil that is anyway committed.† (Goretti 1306) In the case of Oedipus, he is clearly aware of how evil forces are acting upon his life – some of which is caused by his own agency. To the coryphaeus who questions him on what a horrible action he has committed and on which god has induced him, Oedipus answers, â€Å"'It was Apollo', and then, a little afterwards, 'It was me, miserable, who did it'.† (Jones 45) According to Aristotle, a sense of foreboding and inevitability makes for effective tragedy. Throughout the story, there are numerous crucial decisions taken by Oedipus, which led up to his inevitable demise. Oedipus is not himself