Strategic Human Resource Management-11 Assignment

Strategic Human Resource Management-11 - Assignment Example In order to achieve HC-centric management, high involvement approach and global competitor approach can be employed by organizations. However, these two approaches highly depend on efficient employment of talent as a major distinguisher and foundation of competitive advantage. The only difference in the utilization of above approaches is on how they take care of talent and their expectations of gaining competitive advantage (Edward 2). For example, high involvement approach emphasizes on the nature of work that workers are anticipated to do. It also gives room for employees to make decisions about their effectiveness and their level of performance. This means that employees have the responsibility of ensuring that they are capable of self-managing themselves (Edward 2). In the side of global competitor approach, emphasis is on how employees can constantly upgrade their talent. Due to this fact, employees are expected to deliver top scores in their area of duties. Failure to attain th eir goals, they are replaced by other individuals with potentials to perform better (Edward 5). Scott-Jackson noted that very few HR plans have the capacity to address the need to realize competitive advantage through differentiating capabilities. On his side, Edward Lawler argues that organizations need to have the ability to organize and manage people. In fact, Scott argues that most HR plans only aims at developing people in relation to what their competitors’ do, something he argues can not enable competitive advantage. To give solutions to this problem, Edward on his side believes that high involvement approach and global competitor approach can be employed by organizations in order to contribute to effective organization performance, thus competitive

Three Men in Boat Essay Example for Free

Three Men in Boat Essay The book is narrated in the first person by the author, who is referred to as J by his friends. It begins with J, and his friends harris and George, deciding to take a boat trip up the Thames from Kingston to oxford, and then back again (the book was written in 1888, when boating on the Thames was enormously popular). They are unanimous in agreeing that this is a good idea (except for Js dog, Montmorency, who doesnt care for boating). They have trouble getting packed, and in the morning Harris and J take a train to Kingston, where the boat is waiting for them. George is joining them later when he has finished his work at the bank. They row up past Hampton Court, where Harris describes an incident when he got lost in Hampton Court maze with some friends (this is one of the funniest parts of the book). George joins the party, and they have trouble towing the boat, and later they have even more trouble trying to put the cover over the boat for the night. They all get fed up with each other, but cheer up when they have a good Tea. There is a long passage about the signing of Magna Carta (there are several passages like this in the book, where the author gets serious for a bit). They have various other mishaps as they travel up the river, like the time when they are having tinned pineapple for tea, and cant find the tin-opener. They spend a lot of time trying to open it with no success. And there are stories of other trips they made up the river, like the time J was ou tin a boat with his cousin, and they thought they were going crazy because they couldnt find Wallingford Lock (it turns out the lock had been demolished some years earlier). And there ere is the time when they are in an inn which has a stuffed trout in a case on the wall, and several different people come in and claim to have been the one who caught it, but when George stands on a chair to look at it, he knocks it down and it breaks it turns out to be plaster of Paris! When they reach Oxford, and start to travel back, it starts to rain, and they arent enjoying themselves so much. So they abandon the boat and take the train back to London, where they go to a show and then have a good dinner in a restaurant. They make a toast Heres to three men well out of a boat!

Actus Reus In Recklessness And Common Assault Law Essay

Actus Reus In Recklessness And Common Assault Law Essay Maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea means that the guilty act on its own will not make a person criminally liable unless it was done with a guilty state of mind. The majority of crimes are brought about by a mixture of actions and are referred to as the guilty acts these represent the physical elements of a crime (actus reus).The mental elements are the thoughts or guilty state of mind (mens rea). If actus reus and mens rea are known and there is no valid defence, the defendant will be found guilty. It is the task of the prosecution to demonstrate together the actus reus and the mens rea of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt to the agreement of the judge and jury. If the proof is not found then the defendant will be acquitted. The actus reus covers all the exterior elements of an offence and consists of conduct, circumstances, and consequences. These are divided into two categories: Conduct crimes and Result crimes Conduct crimes consist of conduct and circumstance and are those in which the actus reus is concerned with prohibited behaviour in spite of its consequences, an example of this would be to drive when you have been disqualified. Result crimes are those where the guilty act requires proof that the conduct caused the outlawed consequence, for example, the actus reus of criminal damage is that the property owned by another person is damaged, and another example is the act of killing someone or committing murder. As result crimes are concerned with causing the consequences the prosecution must show that it was the defendants behaviour that caused the result or circumstances to occur, they have to provide a clear, unbroken causal link. Causation requires a two stage test: Factual causation, the defendants act must be a sine qua non of the prohibited consequence. This simply means that the consequence would not have occurred without the defendants actions. R v.White (1910) 2 KB 124(CA) this case deals with but for test. The test establishes multiple factual causes of death. Legal causation can be established by showing that defendants act was an operating and substantial cause of death. It may not be the sole or main cause but it must make a significant contribution. R v. Cheshire (1991) 1WLR 844 (CA), R v. Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 (CA). R v. Smith (1959) Legal causation also deals with fault, assigning blame, and responsibility. The defendant will be liable for the all foreseeable consequences or results of their actions. R v. Roberts (1972) 56 Cr App R 95 (CA), R v. Marjoram (1999) (CA). There is no liability in criminal law for omissions unless that failure to act was whilst you are under a duty to act. The duty to act can arise in several ways: Duty arising from statute for example s.170 (4) of the Road Traffic Act 1998 places a duty on the driver involved in an accident to report it to the police or provide details to of the other people involved. Contractual duty, if someone fails to so something under a legally binding contract that they are contracted to do they may be criminally liable if any harm or injury occurs as a result of their failure to act. R v. Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37 (Assizes) concerned a duty to act, contract Parental duty to act and a duty towards family members, this is a common law duty that members of a family owe to each other to care for each others welfare. R v. Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App Rep 134 concerning duty to care, R v. Harris and Harris (1993) Reliance or voluntary assumption of care, R v. Stone and Dobson (1977) CA Supervening fault or dangerous situation, this is where the defendant does nothing to avert a dangerous situation resulting from their conduct. R v. Miller (1983) 1 All ER 978 in relation to situation created by the defendant. The mens rea deals with the guilty state of mind. There are two states of mind which either together or separately can form the necessary mens rea for a criminal offence. These are Intention and Recklessness. Direct intention is where the defendants purpose is to cause death, mens rea of murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Indirect intent which is also known as oblique or foresight intent is where the unlawful consequence as a result of the defendants conduct is foreseen by the defendant as virtually certain although its not the defendants purpose. R v. Woollin (1999) 1 AC 82 (HL) oblique intention, virtual certainty. Recklessness is where the defendant takes an unjustified and unreasonable risk. There are two known types of recklessness, subjective and objective. The law tends to concentrate on subjective tests. R v. G (2004) 1 AC 1034 (HL) subjective recklessness, criminal damage R v.Cunningham (1957) 2 QB 396 (CA) subjective recklessness and interpretation of malicious. The Cunningham test applies to all offences other than criminal damage. Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea When the defendant commits the actus reus of an offence, for liability to occur it must be shown that they also had the correct mens rea at the time the actus reus was committed. The guilty act and guilty state of mind must coincide. Problems have cropped up where the actus reus has been performed, then the mens rea comes into play, and also where the mens rea is present first and then the actus reus follows In order to overcome these problems the courts have used several approaches in order to secure a conviction where the actus reus is complete prior to the mens rea being present, and with the mens rea occurring before the actus reus. The approaches that they have used are called continuing acts and a chain of events. Continuing act is where the actus reus is committed over a period of time and the mens rea is present at some point during it commission. Continuing acts Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)1 QB 439 (DC) The defendant accidentally stopped his car on a policemans foot, (actus reus) when he realised this he didnt take it off (mens rea).It was a continuous act as he had actus reus when he ran over his foot and this only stopped when the car was moved and then the mens rea when he refused to move it. The defendant was subsequently found guilty of assault. R v. Kaitamaki (1985) AC 147 He penetrated the victim (actus reus) and when he realised she objected to the penetration he did not withdraw at which point mens rea was present. It was held that the actus reus of rape was a continuing act, and when he realised she objected he formed the mens rea the actus reus was still continuing and so there was coincidence. The defendant was found guilty of rape. R v. Miller (1983) 2 AC 161 (HL) The defendant fell asleep on a mattress in a house whilst smoking a cigarette. When he woke up he noticed that the mattress was smouldering he left it and decided to go to another part of the house. He made no attempt whatsoever to stop the damage and due to this the house caught on fire. The act which caused the (actus reus) dropping of the cigarette happened when the defendant was asleep and the (mens rea) recklessness, damage to property occurred when he awoke. It was held that the defendants failure to do anything about putting the fire out was the actus reus and this coincided with the appropriate mens rea. Chain of events This is the second approach that deals with the mens rea occurring before the actus reus. The defendant will be found to be criminally liable if the guilty act and guilty state of mind are present even if they do not coincide during the series of events. R. v Church (1966) 1 QB 59 (CA) The defendant took the victim to a van in order to have sex with her. The victim made fun of him so the defendant knocked her unconscious (mens rea). The defendant believed she was dead so he threw her into a river in order to get rid of the victim. The victim then died (actus rea). The defendants conduct was viewed as a series of acts designed to cause GBH or death. The actus reus and mens rea were present during the chain of events. The defendant was found guilty of manslaughter R v. Thabo Mali (1954) PC (South Africa) The defendants took the victim to a hut and beat him over the head intending to kill him. They believed they had killed him so they rolled him over a cliff. The victim did not die from the beating or being rolled of the cliff but died of exposure. It was held that the actus reus and mens rea was present throughout. The actus reus consisted of a series of acts and the mens rea was present at some time during the chain of events. They were found guilty of murder. R v. Le Brun (1991) CA The defendant knocked the victim (his wife) unconscious. Whilst he was moving her she knocked her head on the kerb and this fractured her skull. She later died of the injury. It was held that the original unlawful act and the act causing death (actus reus) and the (mens rea) were all part of the same chain of events. The defendant was found guilty of manslaughter. My own example Im employed as a female plasterer on a building site. After finishing work one evening and on my way home I realised that I had left something behind, so I head back too the site. The site has never been secured properly and the workforces have been complaining about this for some time. Whilst back on site a stranger approaches me and threatens to cause me some harm. As he is coming towards me I deliver a powerful kick into his stomach which causes him to fall back and trip over an item on the floor. He bangs his head on the ground and I also use my hawk to batter him over the head several times to ensure he does not get up again in a hurry. There is a great deal of blood on the floor and he does not appear to be breathing. I feel that he may be dead. I drag his body too the back of the worksite and hide it amongst some very tall weeds. I go back to the area where the blood is, clean up, and then leave the site. This example illustrates how the actus reus and mens rea are all part of the same chain of events and were present throughout Task 1(b) Common assault does not involve physical contact. It is an offence under s39 of The Criminal Justice Act 1998. The actus reus of common assault is when the defendant causes the victim to apprehend (expect) immediate unlawful violence. This can be carried out by conduct, deeds, menacing silence, words, or a failure to act. R v. Ireland (1998) AC 147 (HL) The defendant made several silent calls to the victims, these occurred during the evening. They eventually suffered from psychiatric illnesses (depression, stress, anxiety). The House of Lords decided that words can amount to an assault and that silence calls could be seen as communicating a threat. The defendant was found guilty of assault. R v. Constanza (1997) 2 Cr App R 492(CA) The defendant stalked the victim by following her home, turning up to her home address uninvited, writing offensive words on her front door, making several silent phone calls and sending her over 800 letters. The last letter was hand-delivered and this led to the defendant being found guilty of assault. The victim suffered psychiatric illness as a result of the defendants actions. The mens rea of common assault is the intention to cause apprehension of immediate violence or subjective recklessness as to the assault. Battery involves the use of physical force. The actus reus of battery is the infliction of force or violence, this includes slight touching. The actus reus is made up of three elements which consist of direct and indirect physical contact, non-consensual and physical contact. R. v Haystead (2000) 3 All ER 890 (DC) This case concerns indirect contact. The defendant punched a mother holding her baby. The baby dropped and the defendant was convicted of battery on the baby. Battery requires non-consensual touching, the victim can consent to contact (express) or contact is implied, day to day contact. Battery deals with minor physical contact resulting in minor injuries for example grazes, minor bruising, slight cuts, and black eyes. Collins v Wilcox (1984) 1 WLR 1172 (DC) this case gave examples of implied consent, agreed back slapping, seizing a hand in friendship and jostling on the underground. The mens rea of battery is exactly the same as assault, intention to make physical contact or subjective recklessness as to such contact. Unlawful malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent is the most serious of all the non-fatal offences and is found in s18 OAPA 1861. Section 18 covers GBH by omission. The actus reus is that the defendant must have unlawfully wounded a person or caused grievous bodily harm. It involves deep repeated cuts, minor cuts, bones penetrating the skin. Serious injury includes mental injury and most recently the transmission of diseases. R v. Ireland, Burstow (1998) AC 147 (HL) As in Ireland above. Both defendants stalked the victims with unwanted attention for over 3 years. The victims suffered from psychiatric injuries as a result of the ongoing acts. The house of lords in both cases concluded that harm to a persons mind that amounted to a recognised medical condition would fall under the category of bodily harm. R v Dica (2004) QB 1257 (CA) The defendant who was HIV positive had unprotected sex with several women. The defendant was fully aware that he was infected but he did not inform the victims of his condition. The court of appeal accepted that a person could be liable for recklessly infecting another person with HIV. The mens rea of GBH with intent is that the defendant must have intention to wound or cause GBH. Recklessness as to causing GBH or wounding (malice) and intention to resist or prevent arrest. Strict Liability offences are those in which the defendant may not have intended or known about the consequences of their actions or the circumstances. The defendant does not need to have a guilty state of mind in relation to all parts of the actus reus (guilty act). Strict liability cases make up half the cases appearing before the courts. Defences for strict liability are those that are applicable to actus reus.   Defences that are probably relevant to actus reus include automatism and duress and also foreseeability is quite important as well. Strict liability offences are mainly created by statute and regarded as regulatory offences and public safety/public interest offences. The offences that are covered are quite extensive and include parking offences, road traffic offences, health and safety, dangerous drugs, dangerous weapons, sexual offences, environmental pollution, possession and the control of dangerous and non-dangerous animals. Sweet v Parsley (1970) HL This case is an important case on strict liability where the need for mens rea in most criminal cases was spelt out and where it was suitable for the presumption for mens rea to be dispensed with. Harrow LBC v. Shah (2000) 1 WLR 83 (DC) The defendant was found guilty of selling a lottery ticket to a young person under the age of 16. The defendant was unaware of the persons age when selling the ticket. R v Marriot (1971) the defendant was found guilty after police searched his home and found a tiny amount of cannabis on a knife. His defence told the court that he had not been aware of what the substance on the blade was, he appealed against the decision and was still convicted. It was held that the accused was guilty if he knew that there was a substance on his knife even if he did not know what the substance was. R v Deyemi (2007) CA the defendants were caught with a stun gun, which they believed to be a torch. It was held that the prosecution only had to prove that they possessed the stun gun, and the stun gun was forbidden by the act. The prosecution did not have to prove that the defendants knew that it was an illegal weapon Alphacell v Woodward (1972) HL the defendants were charged with causing pollution to a river. The pollution occurred as a result of a pipe becoming blocked from their factory and the waste product entered a nearby river. FJH Wrothwell v Yorkshire Water Co. (1984), the defendant who was the director of the company  carelessly poured 12 gallons of herbicide into drains. These drains led into a river. Smedleys v Breed (1974) AC 839 A big manufacturer of tinned peas was convicted under the Food and Drugs Act (1955) (now Food and Safety Act 1990) when some tins were found to contain a caterpillars The arguments in favour of strict liability are: They help to prevent environmental pollution People may be prevented from owning unlawful weapons and drugs The public is protected against unsafe structures Helps to encourage people to really improve standards so they will not be prosecuted for committing a criminal offence

Why Do Convenient Stores Have Locks On Their Doors If They Are Always :: essays research papers

Why Do Convenient Stores Have Locks On Their Doors If They Are Always Open? At 1:30 in the morning you are driving down Walton Road when you pass the 7-11. You decide to stop in and treat yourself to a nice big slurpee. As you pull in the parking lot you notice that the sign says, "We're open 24 hr's, 7 days a week, 365 days a year." However, when you reach the door you notice that they have locks on the doors and you think to yourself, why do convenient stores have locks on their doors if they're going to be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year? If they're never going to close then they have no need for locks on the doors. This will only cause an inconvenience for employees and customers. The idea of adding locks onto the doors is only going to cost the store more money. Also, it would give the managers one extra key on their already big key chain that they really have no use for. Since they are open every second of the year, they never need to lock the doors between shifts. When one person's shift is over then the next person will come in and take over. It's not like most stores where at night when the store closes they lock the doors and go home. Then, in the morning whoever is going to be opening comes in and unlocks the store and gets it ready for the first customers of the day. This situation would never happen at a store that is open all the time because there always has to be someone working. On a rare occasion, the store might need to the lock the doors if someone outside is causing trouble. However, if they locked the doors and wouldn't let any customers in they would be lying saying that they're open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year. Doing this would cause the store to lose money because no one could then get into the store. By adding locks onto the doors would also make people think that sometimes they do close, like on holidays. On almost all national holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas, stores will be closed to allow their valued employees time off to spend with family. If this was the case then some people might avoid shopping there on holidays in fear that when they get there they will be closed. Then they would have to drive all the way to another store

Sabmiller Sources of Finance

SABMiller should combine those 4 sources of finance: retained profit, issuing shares, bond, debenture and bank loans. Each source of finance has its own advantages and disadvantages: †¢ Retained profit: When SABMiller use retained profit, it do not have to pay any brokerage fees. Retained profit is also flexible and simple. The manager can use this source of finance for different purposes. Because retained profit belong to the whole company, not any individual so there is no dilution of control. Furthermore, ‘all profit from investment belong to shareholders’.However, using retained pro fit could decrease the possibility to pay and paying high dividends to shareholders. †¢ Bank loans: As a new company enters Vietnamese market, SABMiller needs a large sum of capital to bulid its offices, equipments, raw material and invest in potential projects to earn more profit for its first stage of development. Therefore, borrow money from banks is a very suitable source of finance because they can provide a large amount of money. But asking for a loan from banks is so risky. When the company borrow money from banks, it must pay enough interest on time and the interest rate may be very high.Before lending the firm money, banks would look at SABMiller’s characters, ability to pay back, purpose of the loan, the amount of the loan, the repayment terms of the loan and secutity. If the business did not pay back the interest on time, it is nearly impossible for it to borrow money again. †¢ Issuing shares: It could be a long term source of finance when SABMiller is listed in stock market. If the firm has nice reputation and work well, it will motivate more shareholders to buy the shares, so SABMiller could raise a large sum of capital.Moreover, when the company issues share, it is more difficult for SABMiller to lose ownership and have takeover risk. But as well as its advantages, issuing shares also has many limitations. If there is a reduction on in a shareholder’s percentage of controlling a company, the dilution of control will appear. The cost involved may be high, such as floatation cost, brokerage fees, underwritten fees, administrative fees, legal. Furthermore, issuing shares is so adventurous and risky because if the performance of the company go down, the price of shares will decrease, even it might be very low.The business can have backrupt trouble when the price of share go down too much. When SABMiller cannot repay the debt to creditors, it will lead to backruptcy. †¢ Issuing bonds and debentures: These sources of finance could be used in long term. The company could have a less expensive loan from its creditor. However, debenture stock have to compete with gilts to draft investors. And because debenture stock has higher risk, ‘company debentures must generally offer a higher rate of interest than the interest rate of gilts’. Unless the business pay their debt on time, it will lose its assets and money.

The Angry Black Woman

I am deeply interested in why Black women are received and portrayed as both â€Å"angry† and â€Å"strong† Black Women. It may seem inexplicable that a respected black woman educator would stamp her foot, jab her finger in someone’s face and scream while trying to make a point on national television, thereby reconfirming the notation that black women are irrationally angry. When confronted about race and gender, as a black woman I stand in a crooked room. I have to figure out which way is up. Bombarded with warping images of humanity, I sometimes tilt and bend to fit the distortion.From the single mother who complains about child support to the first lady of the United States, it seems like Black women of all ages and classes have been accused of either being â€Å"angry† or too â€Å"strong† at some point in life. For centuries, the angry black female has been a pervasive stereotype in the United States. You may have heard the term â€Å"Angry Bl ack Woman Syndrome (ABSW)†. Angry Black Woman Syndrome is not only the dynamics between black woman and black men. It is definitively not an official clinical diagnosis or anything.The attitudes behavior of some black women, by some can best be described as a word that starts with â€Å"b† and rhymes with the word â€Å"itch†. Angry Black Woman is just as inescapable today as it was during the slave era. Melissa Harris-Perry, suggests that anger is still one of the most ubiquitous stereotypes faced by black women in modern society. In a recent Super Bowl commercial, Pepsi was criticized for perpetuating this negative perception by depicting a black woman kicking, shoving and punishing her husband for cheating on his diet.America’s first lady had to address the stereotype: In a recent television interview on CBS, Michelle Obama denied the â€Å"angry black woman† depiction of herself that emerged in some coverage following the release of The Obamaâ⠂¬â„¢s, a book by Jodi Kantor. Mrs. Obama defended herself by saying instead that she is â€Å"merely a ‘strong’ woman†. By calling herself â€Å"strong† is she somehow trying to overcompensate for feelings of shame? Although many may think that the Angry Black Woman is a white supremacist myth, they are wrong.In fact, it is a regularly revived and recreated perception in the Black community. The anger black women have is something that ignites strong feelings among black women. The idea of the angry woman is particularly recreated by African-American men who have an interest in displaying Black woman as emasculating or overbearing or angry as a means of basically controlling. Preconceived ideas of black women as dominant and assertive may hurt when it comes to romantic relationships.Yes, there are black women that need to seriously check themselves – particularly black women who think it is cute to be bitter, argumentative, man-hating, and generall y feels angry. She is that woman that frowns or rolls her eyes when smiled at, brands all men as being â€Å"dogs† or â€Å"no good† and she is that woman that thinks it is necessary to curse out another female if she bumps into her in the store even after she has received a sincere apology. It is unfortunate that black women have attitudes and behaviors like this.It is this type of female that sometimes gets acknowledged as the representative for all black women. At the end of the day, the vast majority of black females do not suffer from Angry Black Women Syndrome. If you ask for what you want need or what you want, you are just an angry Black woman. If you do not ask for what you need and try to do everything on your own, however, you could then be labeled as a â€Å"strong† Black woman – a term that may sound like a compliment, but in reality contributes to a derogatory ideal that holds Black women back from progression.When black women respond to rac ism they are responding with anger; the anger of exclusion, of unquestioned privilege of racial distortions, of silence ill-use, stereotyping, defensiveness, misnaming, and of betrayal. Black women may have a well-stocked arsenal of anger potentially useful against those oppressions, personal and institutional, which brought that anger into being. Focused with precision it can become a powerful source of energy serving progress and change. —Audre Lorde, â€Å"The Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Racism† (1981).The emotion which accompanies the first steps toward liberation is, for most women, anger. Through the exercise strength may be gained. As a black woman I envisioned a new America in the 1990’s, anger may have been a vital political tool. I was provided new perspectives, new understandings of oppressive conditions that had previously remained unquestioned. I was introduced to my anger through relationships, through individual and collective political con sciousness; because the angry black women had been theorized.Attention seemed to have been drawn to the anger of black women; it exposed knowledge that had been buried and speech that had been silenced. Anger was a link to previous suppressed histories, and a revolutionary coalition. I couldn't believe—still can't—how angry I can become, from deep down and way back, it sometimes feels like a five-thousand-years of buried anger. Every black woman in America lives her life somewhere along a wide curve of ancient and unexpressed angers, Audre Lorde observed. Only when women are able to feel anger, and then recognize, accept, and direct it towards the real enemy can an association occur.If black women can identify their sources of anger and analyze why they use it is a form of expression. Their anger may then be used as a paradigm for understanding the ways in which black women, at different historical moments, have responded to myriad forms of oppression. Even though, the re is this long-lasting and unfair stereotype it is typically seen as a negative one, standing for abrasive brash and even ill-tempered, it is also consistent with qualities that is often associated with leadership, such as being decisive, aggressive and resolute.In a recent study conducted by Robert Livingston and Ella Washington of Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, it was found that black women leaders who displayed dominant behavior when interacting with subordinates got more favorable reviews than their white female or black male counterparts who behaved the same way. In fact black women were evaluated comparable to white male leaders who display similarly dominant assertive behavior. Black people are proud; African Americans feel a sense of kinship with other Blacks with whom they can take pride in the accomplishments.The other side of racial pride is the underlying feeling of shame. Because we feel pride, about accomplishments of Blacks not related , we can also feel ashamed for failure, transgressions and misbehaviors. The ‘strong’ Black woman’ is a negative image of Black women. Black women are super-strong, hyper-competent; we do not have that many individual needs, we really can take care of others, and we can handle business. Despite the â€Å"angry† figure that some may try to replace with a â€Å"strong† image, Black women are not superhuman. We are not universally strong; we do sometimes feel weak and need help.Whether being labeled angry or strong, the biggest danger as a Black woman is when I began to think the labels were accurate, and began calling myself a â€Å"strong† Black woman. My goal is to recognize that labels are false. They are not indicative to who I am. I may be angry but I am not inherently angry. I am angry about something. So my anger has a meaning. It is not a personality trait. I may be strong enough to make it through difficult circumstances, but that is n ot because I have an inherent inborn capacity for strength – it is because I have very few other options except to be strong or be destroyed.