An essay on the benefits of sanitation in developing countries. The WritePass Journal

An essay on the benefits of sanitation in developing countries. INTRODUCTION An essay on the benefits of sanitation in developing countries. INTRODUCTIONDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONREFERENCESRelated INTRODUCTION This essay seeks to highlight with references four of the major benefits of sanitation in developing countries. Sanitation is the hygienic means of promoting health through prevention of human contact with the hazards of waste. In public health terms, the main source of this hazard is from human and animal feaces. Other sources include solid waste and domestic wastewater. Therefore, any intervention that seeks to separate these waste from humans is termed sanitation. Sanitation or sanitation interventions could be in form of hardware e.g. hygienic latrines or software in form of hygiene practice such as handwashing with soap. Mara et. al. (2010) opined that â€Å"Sanitation is the safe disposal of human excreta† defining ‘safe disposal’ as the hygienic containment or treatment of the excreta to avoid adversely affecting human health. Available 2010 figures show that 2.6billion people, mainly in the developing countries lack access to improved sanitation.It also sh owed that about 1.2billion people lack even an unimproved sanitation facility and practice open defeacation. (WHO, UNICEF, 2010). Statistics from various studies conducted have pointed to the enormous number of people that lack adequate sanitation worldwide and this has prompted some interventions and target setting by organisations across the world. Of such targets is the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of the United Nations on sanitation which seeks to halve the population of people without adequate sanitation by 2015 using 1990 figures as baseline and also World Health Organisation (WHO) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) target of ‘Water and Sanitation’ for all by 2025. These targets underscores the importance of sanitation among human population and is geared at creating awareness through all levels of government to the burden that lack of sanitation poses to the people. This essay shall describe the benefits that comes with sanitation in developi ng countries with references to buttress the importance of achieving this targets and what is at stake to be gained. DISCUSSION Sanitation has many benefits but one of the most important (if not the most important) is its contribution to the healthy living of a community or society. Health is wealth as it is commonly said. So, the health status of a community or family has a great role to play in their livelihood. Diarrhoeal diseases are mainly of feaco-oral route and they account for around 1.6 – 2.5million deaths annually. (Mathers C. D. et. al. 2006). Many of these deaths are under five children in developing countries. From the work of Black K. et. al. (2010), diarrhoeal was the leading cause of death among children under five years of age in sub-saharan Africa, resulting in 19% of all deaths in this age group. Eventhough studies carried out has not rigorously separated the specific effect of sanitation from the overall effect of water and sanitation intervention, systematic reviews has suggested that improved sanitation can reduce the rates of diarrhoeal diseases by 32% 37% (Fewtrell I. et. al., 2005). Apart from diarrhoeal diseases, other diseases such as Schistosomiasis, Trachoma and Intestinal helminths causes lots of morbidity episodes and death in a lot of cases. The table below shows the morbidity and mortality rates of selected water, sanitation and hygiene related diseases. Source: Maggie A. et al (2007). American Chemical Society. It can be seen from the table that all these high morbidity and mortality causing diseases are related to unsanitary disposal of excreta. With good sanitation practice, a very good substantial reduction to these figures can be achieved and the general health situation in the developing world would be greatly improved. The popular ‘F’ diagram (Figure 1 overleaf) showing transmission routes of feaco-oral diseases clearly shows also how sanitation could substantially reduce the spread of diseases. Even in a situation of good water supply, without sanitation in place, high risk of contamination in households still exist. Figure 1: Feaco-oral diseases transmission routes and interventions to stop them Source: Feachem R. G. et. al. (1983). Sanitation and disease. Apart from feaco-oral diseases, sanitation lowers considerably the risk of children’s exposure to malnutrition and other infections that might not be directly feaco-oral but that becomes prevailent with increasing episodes of diarrhoeal. (Isabel Gunther et. al., 2011). Overall, sanitation directly improves the health of a community or household by reducing morbidity and mortality. These health improvements indirectly translate to economic benefits. In addition to the benefits sanitation brings to health, it also generates economic benefits. The benefits include direct cost reduction in catering for health due to less sickness especially from diarrhoeal diseases, less days lost at school or at work due to sickness or having to care for sick people and also convenience time savings from walking or queuing at shared sanitation facilities or open defeacation (Hutton G. et. al, 2007). Hutton et. al. interprets the benefits of water and sanitation improvements as being in three categories. ‘Direct economic benefits of avoiding diarrhoeal diseases, indirect economic benefits related to health improvements and non-health benefits related to water and sanitation improvements.’ These benefits are summarised in table 2 below. The benefits were valued to monetary terms using economic methods for valuation. Table 2:   Economic benefits arising from water and sanitation improvements Source: Hutton G, Haller L, Bartram J (2007) The prevention of sanitation and water related diseases could save some $7billion per year in health system costs and an additional $3.6billion per year savings in averted deaths based on discounted future earnings (Hutton et. al., 2007). In many of the developing countries, around half of the hospital beds are occupied by people with diarrhoeal diseases at any one time. This shows the amount of burden that these preventable diseases bring to the developing countries. Sanitation practices can reduce these occurrences to a very minimal level. Figures from Lao People’s Democratic Republic shows that poor sanitation and hygiene cost the country 5.6% of her annual GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per year when expressed on a national scale. (Hutton et. al., 2009). Ghana and Pakistan figures also suggest that general improvement in environmental conditions could save 8% 9% of GDP annually. (WHO, 2008). All these statistics and figures show the potential economic gains that is set to b e derived or gained through sanitation practices. The Disease Control Priorities Projects has found sanitation as the second most cost effective health intervention in the world at $11.15 per DALY (Disability Adjusted Life Year) loss averted, coming behind hygiene promotion which is at $3.35 per DALY averted. (Cairncross et. al., 2006). Table 3: Economic benefits resulting from meeting the MDG sanitation target and from achieving universal sanitation access. Source: Hutton G. et. al., 2007. Table 3 (previous page) shows the cost-benefit ration that is potentially attributed with achieving the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) sanitation target of halving the number of people without improved sanitation by 2015 to 1999 baseline figure and with achieving universal sanitation access in the non OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. This means a one dollar investment on sanitation could bring up to ten dollars worth of economic return gained from the productive work of not being sick. (Mara D.D. et. al., 2010). Therefore, sanitation practices brings about economic development on a national scale through all the averted deaths, avoided DALY losses and money saved in disease treatment that can be used efficiently in other areas of the economy. At the household and community level, the household has more productive time from the ones saved from attending the sick, more children time at school which indirectly translates to better income genera tion for the family or community and therefore a better living standard. Even though health seems to be the strongest point for the spread and campaign of sanitation practices, it is not always the main reason why people want to have clean and hygienic way of practicing sanitation. Other needs to have a good sanitation practice may include: privacy, safety, comfort, cleanliness and respect (Jeff Conant, 2005). Therefore the social benefits that come with good sanitation practice too are enormous and very important in maintaining a good social stratification and integrity within a community. Engaging in good sanitation practice because of the economic gains and health benefits comes most handy in respect to the government. Sourcing of funds and prioritising investment in sanitation improvement projects or infrastructure are the areas where arguments sell and allowing the government to understand the benefits that comes with sanitation improvement. But, when it comes to the people themselves, social factors such as privacy, dignity etc. as mentioned earlier seems to be the stronger reason why they will want to have good sanitation. The billions who must defeacate in bushes and open places face daily assaults to their human dignity and safety. Jon Lane, 2008, noted that â€Å"the humble toilet can speed social development by: aiding progress towards gender equality promoting social inclusion increasing school attendance building community pride and social cohesion and contributing to poverty eradication.† In the absence of adequate sanitation, women and girls are usually the most affected. Women are the ones that care for children and bear the highest risk of direct contact with faeces. Women and young ladies alike are the ones that bear most, the risk of assault and in some cases rape when seeking privacy in the dark at night to defeacate. This problem affects their well-being and limits their free and equal participation in the economic and social life of the community in which they find themselves. When there are no toilets in school or no separate toilet for boys and girls, girls enrolment and stay in school are most affected. They have to stay back home during their menstruation and generally loose motivation for school attendance. â€Å"Globally, one in four girls do not complete primary school compared to one in seven boys† (Jon lane, 2008). Also studies in Alwar district of India shows that sanitation increased girls school enrolment by one-third and improved academic p erformance for boys and girls by a quarter. So, sanitation brings about more gender equality and lessens the burden and risks on women and girls. Another strong social benefit that comes with sanitation is community cohesion. The act and practice of collectively keeping streets and the environment clean (environmental sanitation) and also, the joint effort communities put in improving their sanitation practice (e.g. eradication of open defeacation) brings a bond and a sense of belonging to the members of a community. It makes them share a common pride of cleanliness. This brings about a change in social attitude that they can boast of. â€Å"For example some villages residents have painted signs that read: daughters from our village are not married into villages where open defeacation is practised† (Jon Lane, 2008). All the social factors that gets affected by the extent of sanitation practice are indirectly linked to the subject of poverty profile. Poor people tend to be the ones that are not able to access good sanitation hardwares. This deprives them of their major asset – physical health and ability to work t hereby making their situation worse. But interventions in sanitation can help them keep healthy at all times and help them divert their resources to other critical areas, raising their economic status and reducing the gap between the rich and poor in developing countries. Sanitation practices assist in environmental sustainability. It can be used to strike a nutrient balance in the present world where there is so much stress on our available resources. Human waste gets into water courses and land from open defeacation, disposal of untreated sewer effluents into river channels and leakages from not well designed pit latrines. â€Å"In the developing world, roughly 90% of sewage is discharged untreated into rivers, polluting waters and killing plants and fishes† (United Nations Water, 2008). Also â€Å"In Asia alone, 13million tonnes of feaces are released to inland water sources each year, along with 122millionm3 of urine and 11billion3 of greywater† (United Nations Water, 2008). This is a major for people using streams as their primary water source and economic risk for people that depends on aquatic life (e.g. fishing) for their livelihood. Figures from United Nations also suggest that â€Å"water pollution arising from poor sanitation costs south east Asia more than US$2billion per year, and in Indonesia and Vietnam creates environmental costs of more than US$200million annually primarily from the loss of productive land† Sanitation practices contain human waste with the option of safe treatment for disposal or maintaining the containment. Therefore sanitation stops this trend of environmental degradation and avoids the losses associated with it. Human excreta contain valuable nutrients (Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium). â€Å"We produce 4.56kg Nitrogen, 0.55kg Phosphorus, and 1.28kg Potassium per person per year from feaces and urine. This is enough to produce wheat and maize for one person every year† (WSSCC in Mara D.D., lecture material, IPH, 2011). Going by the fact that conventional mineral fertiliser are mainly of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium constituents, farmers in developing countries can use the nutrients in excreta to enhance agricultural output at lower costs. The practice of â€Å"Ecological Sanitation† can be used to achieve this. That is, practice sanitation for environmental sustainability while at the same time turning waste (excreta) into a resource. The range s of practices include â€Å"Arboloos† (where a tree is planted on the latrine pit in succession), â€Å"Urine diverting latrines† (that produces fertilisers from urine and composted feaces) and â€Å"Biogas toilets† (that produces methane from anaerobic digestion of feaces). By using this technology, a three way benefit can be derived from sanitation. Environmental sustainability, increase in crop yield leading to better economic benefit while at the same time satisfying the health benefits that comes with sanitation. CONCLUSION REFERENCES Black R, Cousens S, Johnson H, Lawn J, Rudan I, et. al. (2010) Global, regional, and national causes of child mortality in 2008: a systematic analysis. Lancet 375: 1969–1987. Cairncross S, Valdmanis V (2006) Water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion. In :Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR, et al. (2006) Disease control priorities in developing countries, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Feachem R.G., Bradley D.J., Garelick H., Mara D.D. (1983) Sanitation and disease. Health aspects of wastewater and excreta management. Chichester: John Wiley Sons. Fewtrell L, Kaufmann RB, Kay D, Enanoria W, Haller L, et al. (2005) Water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions to reduce diarrhoea in less developed countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infectious Diseases 5. Heinonen-Tanski, H., Pradhan, S.K. Karinen, P., 2010. Sustainable Sanitation- A Cost-Effective Tool to Improve Plant Yields and the Environment. Sustainability, 2(1), pp.341-353. Available at: mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/1/341/ [Accessed June 2, 2011]. Hutton G (2009) Economic impacts of sanitation in Lao PDR. Jakarta: World Bank and Water Sanitation Program Hutton G, Haller L, Bartram J (2007) Economic and health effects of increasing coverage of lowcost household drinking-water supply and sanitation interventions to countries off-track to meet MDG target 10. Geneva: World Health Organization. Isabel Gunther, Gunther Fink. (2011). Water and sanitation to reduce child mortality. The impact and cost of water and sanitation infrastructure. Policy research working paper 5618. The World bank Development Economics Prospect Group. Jef Conant. (2005). Sanitation and cleanliness for a healthy environment. Hesperidian Foundation, UNDP. www.hesperidian.org Jon Lane. (2008). The economicand social benefits of improved sanitation. Speech delivered at the fourth Carribean Environmental Forum and Exhibition. St. George’s University, Grenada. Assessed at www.wsscc.org. Mara, D. et al., 2010. Sanitation and health. PLoS medicine, 7(11), p.e1000363. Available at: pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2981586tool=pmcentrezrendertype=abstract [Accessed February 9, 2011]. Mathers CD, Lopez AD, Murray CJL (2006) The burden of disease and mortality by condition: data, methods, and results for 2001. New York: Oxford University Press. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. (2002). Access to sanitation in developing countries. www.parliarment.uk/post/hom.htm. United Nations Water. (2008). Sanitation protects the environment. Fact sheet 4. www.esa.un.org. W.H.O. (2006). Human Development Report Office.   Economic and Health Effects of Increasing Coverage of Low Cost Water and Sanitation Interventions. W.H.O., UNICEF. (2010). Progress on sanitation and drinking water – 2010 update. Geneva: World Health Organisation. W.H.O., UNICEF. (2000). Global Assessment of water supply and sanitation. World Bank (2008) Environmental health and child survival: epidemiology, economics, experience. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Counterproductive or deviant behaviours in organisations Essays

Counterproductive or deviant behaviours in organisations Essays Counterproductive or deviant behaviours in organisations Paper Counterproductive or deviant behaviours in organisations Paper Counter productive or deviant behaviours in organisations have continued to thrive and having huge financial costs to many businesses. There are various factors that cause work deviance or counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) like lack of trust between manager and employees, unfair treatment, rewards system and the need to revenge after a perceived unjust or unfair treatment. The management has many ways of reducing these deviant behaviours despite their prevalence. The manager should set an example; establish trust, treat workers with respect and dignity and fair compensation systems. Counterproductive or deviant behaviour in organisations Counterproductive work behaviour can be simply described as the behaviours by members of an organization that counter the Organization’s rightful interests. In other terms counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) can be seen as consisting of deliberate actions by workers that could harm an organization or its stakeholders. CWB can be demonstrated through acts of physical aggression against people or less violent forms conduct like verbal aggression and any other type of maltreatment directed toward individuals. It includes damage and abuse of organizational possessions or assets, performing work the wrong way, or even failing to inform managers about faults and other job problems for example, a machine failure, and issues of absenteeism for example reporting as sick when not. It also includes acts of violence, deviance reprisal and revenge (Jones, 2009). Organizational or work deviance can be referred to as the employees’ voluntary or calculated behaviours that violate the norms of an institute, and in the end threatening or jeopardising the welfare and interests of an organization and its members at large. Workplace deviance can group into production, political, property deviance and personal aggression. Production deviance involves violating quality and principles that direct product reliability. It occurs when workers infringe the values of quality and measure when producing a product or a service, for example, wasting resources, or deliberately working at a snails pace. Political deviance takes place when employees demonstrate preferential treatment to particular stakeholders, placing others at a disadvantage, for example undercharging preferred customers. Property deviance is depicted through the destruction or acquisition of the business assets without company consent for example by stealing products or filling expense accounts. Lastly personal aggression entails unfriendly or aggressive behaviour which could harm the reputation of the organisation like having off-putting cost for the targeted customers. It also includes coercion tactics like verbal abuse or sexual harassment (Raven Rubin 1976). Work deviance and counterproductive work behaviour can be influenced by a number of issues which could be personal or organisational. The management influences the working conditions, the terms of employment, working hours, means of rewards and payment, the general feelings of the employees through the language that they communicate to them (and in this case abusive supervision), the level of motivation, methods of correction and termination of employment and the level of trust and justice that they demonstrate in the treatment of employees. Many of the factors emanate from the organizations management despite the fact that there are other factors that influence work deviance or counterproductive work behaviour (Ajzen, I. 1991). The first managerial issue influencing CBW and work deviance is the terms of rewards to the employees. Depending on the organization’s design, reimbursement and remuneration system on several instances can promote employees tendency to have deviant behaviours. In other cases competition for higher rewards can be basis of employees looking out for themselves and to have the notion that devious actions are necessary to be able to have an upper hand over their co-workers. In organisations where employees’ compensation is partly determined upon by gratuities or commissions or in other cases better employees’ recognition with clientele, can most likely trigger unexpected behaviours that workforce can come up with under the pretext of having a business meeting to achieve the set sales targets and consumer satisfaction. According to research there are many instances of the association sandwiched between commissions and gratuities and cases of deviance in the workplace. Studies of employees in marketing and sales positions in a number of industries such as real estate, insurance, banking, automobiles, financial service and other sectors whose income is based on commission, indicated high incidences of workplace deviance, ranging from giving false information on meeting quotas, undercharging customers for services offered and overstating expense accounts. Although to the managers’ main idea behind commission based remuneration is to persuade employees to sell a high level of products and establish high consumer service and fulfilment, workers will engage deviant behaviours to get financially rewarded and at the same time sell and gratify the client (Litzky et al 2006). Another factor that can initiate work deviance is the ambiguity about job performance where there is lack of information on the roles and uncertainty on the expectations of the management which ultimately leads to perceived job stress. This leads to feeling of ambiguity on how their roles are defined, their responsibilities and expected behaviour in certain situations. The results are negative job responses, low turnover, stress, low job performance and other indications of deviance. This mostly happens to individuals who have limit spanning jobs like accountants, insurance professionals and customer service representatives and in this case when managers pressure employees to do what it takes to satisfy consumers this amounts to job ambiguity, and they may deviate hoping the managers will condone. At the same time there is direct conflict between management policies and customer satisfaction and the employees are left in a dilemma (Lewicki et al 1998). Another key factor that encourages CWB and deviance is abusive supervision and unfair treatment or organizational injustice. Supervisors and managers who inflict various forms of non-physical hostility to their subordinates like loud outbursts, abusive language, threats, belittling and undermining them cause psychological distress and indisposition to work among employees. Unfair treatment comes in when employees feel that the rules that have been established to increase efficiency and service quality are unjust and especially if they impede their abilities to do their jobs. Employees can perceive organizational justice in two ways: interpersonal justice that influences the degree to which the organizations treat employees with understanding, respect and dignity and informational justice referring to the apparent sufficiency of explanations managements give about measures and outcomes that have an effect on employees. If employees perceive injustice of any of the two they may resolve to CWB to diminish their supportive behaviours to evade exploitation (Bennett Robinson 2000). When managers violate trust in their employees, they are likely to do the exact opposite of the instructions of the manager when he goes out. Some managers think that workers cannot be dependable to act morally or in the top interest of the business. Lack of trust is displayed in incidences like when managers harshly reprimand employees in the face of clients or colleagues and the employee feels humiliated for being scolded in public,. In such cases the trust existing between the managers and his workers is broken, and collegiality dwindles. Employees feel that their manager could not have confidence in them to perform their jobs appropriately. Trust between employees and the managers is a double-edged sword: the existence of trust can improve the connection and raise performance, however when violated it may also lead to worse cases of deviant behaviours (Edwards Bagozzi 1998). The most evident reason for counterproductive or deviant behaviours is revenge directed toward the managers or the management. In an attempt to restore their dignity, employees hit back or discipline the manager even if they will not gain directly from being involved in a deviant behaviour. In most cases connection between alleged injustice and unfairness reflect fundamental desires to revenge. Employees seeking to avenge use CWB as their tool. According to research, some even sacrifice the monetary gain to get an opportunity to castigate the unjust individual. In such cases employees in an attempt to get back at their supervisor or organization may get involved in activities that increase expense or affects the quality of product or services and general sales (Folger Cropanzano 1998). Apart from the managerial issues there are factors like the social pressure to conform and emotional or personal status of the employee. Social pressure to conform in organizations where there are organization norms may push members to comply to avoid punishments for non-conformity. In a workplace that exposes employees to undue pressure may push them to deviant behaviours. In another example where a group of workers for example sales representatives have deemed some deviant behaviours acceptable they will definitely coerce new employees to conform to the same habits, for example cheating in sales (Giacalone Greenberg 1997). On individual factors some employees may not have emotional stability or they may be going through circumstances or have personal traits that would push them to work deviance. Such factors like low emotional stability, low agreeableness, external locus of control and cynicism are some of the personal traits which can be solved by personal counselling. Age may at times affect the tendency of individuals engaging in deviant behaviours. Financial pressures may also tempt an employee to get involved in counterproductive or deviant behaviour (Jones, 2009). The management can institute measures that could minimize counterproductive or deviant behaviour. To start with they should provide fair and adequate compensation to employees. Adequate reward system will ensure employee satisfaction and will reduce their chances of wanting to steal from the organization. For example if a pay system involves profit sharing it should done promptly and consistently (Giacalone Greenberg 1997). Managers should create an ethical climate through leading by example. The workers perception of their organizations climate influences their tendency of deviant or ethical behaviour. Managers must model ethical behaviours to enable employees to perceive a connection between honesty and success. The personnel manager hired should be of high ethical values. The values of honesty should be set by example themselves because in some instances some practices seem acceptable to the managers and thus employees take it is a norm for example failure to disclose some information when selling a policy to a customer (Bennett Robinson, 2000). Organizations should create policies and procedures of rules and rewards regarding counterproductive behaviours. This can be done by adopting and communicating policies that concern the subject. It should as well spell the behaviours and specify the consequences of such actions and information communicated on hiring. There should also be a policy of punishing he offenders to ward off prospective behaviours. However in implementing such policies the organization should not establish surveillance which would portray lack of trust (Jones, 2009). Managers should establish a trusting relationship with employees based on mutual respect and trust. Managers can employ relational psychology between them and their employees. The kind of psychological agreement that managers build up between their workers will determine their employees’ attitude and behaviour. If employees look at their employers’ confidence as mutual, relational psychological contracts are prone to establish commendable levels of participation and devotion by workers. Supervision styles that replicate low levels of regulation and high levels of trust motivate employees to conduct themselves responsibly (Litzky et al 2006). Finally, managers should treat employees with respect, trust and dignity, because they will be less likely to be counterproductive if employers are respectful and sensitive to their needs. Related to this, is the attempt to enrich their jobs by increasing job autonomy and increasing their responsibility in decision making. This will show that they are appreciated and respected (Giacalone Greenberg 1997). In conclusion, there are various reasons as to why employees have counterproductive and deviant behaviour like stealing, overstating expenses or giving the wrong information on sales among much other behaviour. Most of these are related to the managers and therefore they are still within the control of the management or organization. Therefore managers can reduce such behaviours by treating employees with respect and dignity, setting standards for ethical climate and establishing trust between them and having a fair compensation system. References Ajzen, I. (1991). Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. The theory of planned behaviour. 50, 179–211. Bennett, R. J Robinson, S. L. (2000). The development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology: 85, 349–360. Edwards, J. R Bagozzi, R. P. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research: Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45–87. Folger, R. , Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Giacalone, R Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behaviour in organizations. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications. Jones. A. (2009). Organizational behaviour: Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 30, 525–542. Lewicki, R. J. , McAllister, D. J. , Bies, R. J (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3): 438–458. Litzky, B. E. , Eddleston, K. A. , Kidder, D. L. (2006). How Managers Inadvertently Encourage Deviant Behaviours. The Good, the Bad, and the Misguided: 91-99. Raven, B. H Rubin, J. Z. (1976). Social psychology: People in groups. New York: Wiley.

Sex and Gender with Dr. Chantal Tetreault Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Sex and Gender with Dr. Chantal Tetreault - Essay Example Therefore, they subordinate men in almost all activities. So, the community expects them to be hardworking, loving and patient so that they can do their chores without any constraints. There exit a difference between sex and gender (Martin). In my own understanding, sex may be used to refer to either male or female. Therefore, people can be categorized as man or woman and boy or girl depending on the sex (Martin). Sex can also be used to categorize the functions of gender. Men can perform hard work for they have the muscles and the stamina while women are supposed to perform light chores (Martin). The readings have challenged me in that it has made me understand that women do a lot of work than men. Women therefore contribute much in the production of goods and services compared to men. The reading material has given an example of the Betsileo women in Madagascar who usually invest about a third of the hours invested in rice production in addition to their daily customary tasks (Gender: Exploring Culture Diversity). Separate genders have come out of the customary tasks to do what is considered as culturally bad. These activities range from leadership to other noble tasks. For example, the Williams sisters; Serena William and Vienna William have greatly been praised for their sport and have developed many agendas contributing to the positive focus on gender sensitivity in countries where they do put bars between men and