Unilever and Proctor Gamble Essay Sample free essay sample

A Frenchman named Henri Fayol ( 1841-1925 ) . although an applied scientist came up with a theory. He changed the ideas of concern disposal and sculpted a construction of direction that is practiced even now in this twenty-four hours and age by a huge figure of companies worldwide. This theory of his. now normally known as ‘The 14 rules of direction by Fayol’ is traveling to be applied in two mega-organisations such as Uniliver and Proctor A ; Gamble ( P A ; G ) : Proctor A ; Gamble and Unilever are two large transnational corporations that manufacture a big scope of consumer goods such as drinks. nutrient. personal attention merchandises. merchandises for the place. etc. The former is an American transnational corporation while the latter is a Dutch-British transnational corporation. In around 1997. Unilever decided that it was clip to get down populating up to its possible. The new aim to increase focal point and better consequences. unsurprisingly go a precedence. We will write a custom essay sample on Unilever and Proctor Gamble Essay Sample or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Clear way was set and it was agreed about nem con that the company should direct its focal point on specific undertakings and merchandises that mattered. For case. the sale of the chemicals concern in 1997. although considered as a really promising chance. if holding been allowed to stay in the portfolio would hold resulted in a divergence of managerial attending. labor. support. etc. This helped Unilever impart more of its clip and energy into their other merchandises as they didn’t have to worry about the chemical concern any longer. This and other such cases finally lead to a steep growing in the development for Unilever. In the 1990s. Unilever realized that it wasn’t developing and turning really fast – both in footings of net income and size. The head of the many jobs was that they focused a considerable sum of clip and energy on excessively many undertakings. most of which did non necessitate that much attending. Finally. Unilever realized that although th ey had the equal cognition and means to turn on a much faster and larger graduated table. non plenty was done to work the economic system to do a serious and desirable growing jet for them. A serious lacking of enterprise was merely but obvious. Although there was creativeness. there was no 1 to take up the wand and run with the thought. Inaugural doesn’t halt at the thought. What makes it count is when the thought blazes into a world through the flickers of executing. Since the start of the new century. thoughts were executed and the steady growing was inevitable. And to promote this. Unilever invested US $ 1 billion for the twelvemonth 2001 dedicated for the intent of research and development. It besides added an excess US $ 5. 7 billion for the selling of its merchandises. In an inspirational film Remember the Titans ( 2000 ) ; the manager of a high school American-football squad is faced with the undertaking of unifying his participants who are of both races. black and white. At that clip. due to the fortunes sing racism. to even believe of equity between the two antecedently mentioned races as a possibility would be madness. And to add to the coach’s mountain of a state of affairs. he needed credence into his squad as he was an African American. But one line that doesn’t fail to talk to the bosom of the spectator is when Coach Boone. standing on the same land where the Gettysburg Battle was fought. expresses the desire for his squad to develop the espirt de corps by shouting out these words to his squad. â€Å"If we don’t come together on this hallowed land. we excessively will be destroyed! † Equity and esprit de corps travel hand-in-hand. And Unilever. acknowledging that they were one of the most international companies in the universe. ensured that by first settling the fact that each individual was equal to another and cipher was higher than another by race. faith. sex or any other factor. Because without recognizing equity. people can non develop the espirt de corps which requires harmoniousness and integrity among people. Once Unilever had dealt with equality among the employees. it was easy to blend people into different squads and therefore bring forth greater consequences as different positions and positions were added to teamwork with the aid of different backgrounds. huge experiences and diverse civilizations from these employees. A really similar policy was followed and still is followed in P A ; G. P A ; G’s strive for regard to be shown throughout and on every degree of the company hopes to finally see a complete abolition of force. favoritism. subjugation. etc. and therefore finally develop the e sprit de corps for itself in harmoniousness and integrity. Many organisations consider the wage of its employees slightly of a delicate fuss. The existent battle lies in happening the right balance between working hours. benefits. committees and wages that will profit both the company and the employee. However. if this ‘balance’ is met. the opportunities of a company maintaining its employees run enormously high. In the instance of Unilever. they had made a program to maintain their employees every bit long as they perchance could. They started out by first choosing the right people for the occupation. By and large. these were people who showed high potency. Once the individual was selected. a good wage was given to him along with sensible working hours and plentifulness of benefits. This resulted in a steady turnover from the employees and a stableness of forces as employees were happy with their on the job conditions and didn’t feel the demand to happen work in new grazing lands. It was besides of benefit to Unilever as effectivity and overall consequences turned for the better of the organisation. By maintaining its employees. Unilever was really giving them much more experience in their peculiar field of work and besides heightening the opportunities of publicity within the company instead than outside engaging which normally turns out to be a more expensive and drawn-out procedure. P A ; G by and large has the lesser sum of jobs when it comes to wage and stableness of its employees. As the employees are introduced into the company after seminars. development plans and leisure trips to the U. K. and Ireland. a comfort zone is unwittingly built for them. They are besides given particular attending and are made to go to several classs on the debut and operation of P A ; G. Besides a heavy wage. employees are awarded immense inducements and fillips for finishing undertakings. Incentives are given to three classs of productiveness: top performing artists ( those who perform much better than the set mark ) . cardinal subscribers ( those who perform what they were asked ) and those who perform below the mark set for them. The company sets its wage on the same degrees as that of other major worldwide companies but chooses to present high fillips to promote its employees to avoid absenteeism and slack in productiveness. In 2001. Unilever found the demand to split work . after the procurance of top companies such as Bestfoods and Slimfast. These new methods of direction split the focal point from a really general position to a specific manner of direction. A separate section was set up to overlook the proceedings for nutrient and another was set up to make the same for homo and personal attention. Each section had its ain research squad and concern squad. Hence. different marks were set for each section so that each section would endeavor for excellence through a monolithic encouragement to its invention and quicker determination devising. which would ensue in a quickening in the execution of those determinations. Unilever. with its long-run attack to direction and growing. found that it is better for an person to travel from one runing company to another ( within Unilever ) so as to acquire the maximal experience he perchance can and to broaden his position on direction itself. Although this may look to be as a mark of uncertainness and unrest in the short-run. in the long tally this is a policy has proven dramatic consequences as directors return back to the first subdivision as senior directors and company function theoretical accounts. Puting the general good of the company foremost means puting the organisational aim as precedence over the personal end. This doesn’t imply that the personal aims of the employee are to be cr ushed and that they are to make merely as the company orders. What this really means is that even though every employee has his/her ain ground for fall ining the peculiar company. imparting those grounds in such a manner that it is good to the company and to the employee is what is desirable. P A ; G allows its employees to take drawn-out holiday interruptions and work lesser hours a hebdomad but on a status that when the employees are working. there is a 100 % productiveness and effectivity from their portion. Even though it may look as a though P A ; G is losing clip because its employees are working less compared to those in other companies. it is really the solution to their high productiveness rates. When it comes to ‘calling the shots’ . the people in higher places with the greater authorization make the determinations. Authority is the right to give orders and to obtain obeisance. There are chiefly two ways in through which these determinations are taken: centralisation or decentalisation. Most organisations use a mixture of both systems. Centralization is when the determinations are made at the caput of the house. Although considered as parent companies. both Unilever N. V. ( Netherlands ) and Unilever plc. ( U. K. ) operate a batch as a individual entity. A commission of seven members. led by the presidents of both subdivisions in Netherlands and the U. K. are responsible for strategically taking the other smaller subdivisions around the universe. Ever since the 1970s. Unilever had been following such a construction. Although this may look the best manner to travel about doing determinations. it is really a very clip consuming and energy disbursement method. And because of this centralisation. there was a monolithic failure when Unilever wanted to unify with other companies. Ever since 2005. the determination to deconcentrate power has proven to be the right measure frontward. Even though this is a long procedure that can non be done nightlong. and is still in the procedure of being wholly realized. the benefits of this alteration are bearing fruit for Unilever. However. the scalar concatenation is still being respected in Unilever. This means that the higher up the concatenation the individual is. the more authorization and duty is g ranted to him. It besides ensures that every individual still has a foreman to describe to. As famously said by Uncle Ben to the chief character Peter Parker portrayed by Tobey Maguire in the action film Spiderman ( 2001 ) . â€Å"With great power comes great duty! † so does the same apply to direction. If a individual has authorization over another. so he is besides responsible for the development of that subsidiary. Besides if a individual has a foreman. so no 1 else is allowed to give him instructions that change the initial direction given to him by his ain foreman. This means that there must be some kind of integrity in bid when it comes to teaching a individual. A individual can non hold two different higher-ups giving him instructions over one same affair. This will take to heavy contradictions and confusion among the subsidiaries. Decentralization is the sort of order that runs in P A ; G. Employees. unlike those in Unilever are allowed to do certain determinations within their boundaries drawn out to them. They are given much more authorization but besides on their home bases. come a batch more duty. Despite P A ; G being an exceptionally big administration. the communicating that appears to be taking topographic point between directors and employees is surprisingly really informal and societal. Even though formal meetings. are held between a director and his subsidiary. in P A ; G a d ifferent type of communicating is noticed. Here the senior director is allowed to speak to a junior employee anytime he feels like even to the extent that a insouciant tiffin is allowable and frequent. In add-on to that. employees are encouraged to subject suggestions on a quarterly footing to the HR section where so an one-year elaborate feedback is forwarded to the director based on the suggestions and ailments sent in by his employees. Discipline from Employees can non be overlooked. To obey the regulations and ordinances set by the administration requires non merely subjecting subsidiaries but besides good higher-ups at all grades. The same disciplinary guidelines are followed at P A ; G and Unilever. where employees are expected to work with unity. in all honestness and with the extreme regard for their colleges and clients. Recently the criterions of relationships between people both inside and outside the company have been raised. Malpractice. fraud. payoff. etc. of any degree does non have any kind of amusement whatsoever. Before fall ining the company. each and every employee is warned that there are terrible penalties that come with such patterns. Overall. there isn’t much of a difference between both Unilever and P A ; G as both of them run about the same sort of concern. They both trade with so many merchandises and hence drama immense functions in the planetary market when it comes to merchandises like theirs. That is why they have so many similarities when it comes to train and equity. They besides see each other as competition and the competition between the two has surely caused the two to hold some differences in direction manners like the concatenation of bid and order. wage and stableness of its employees. Mentions 1 ) How Procter and Gamble Survived Through Innovation – A Case Study – a knol by Osman Masahudu Gunu. 2011. How Procter and Gamble Survived Through Innovation – A Case Study – a knol by Osman Masahudu Gunu. [ ONLINE ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //knol. Google. com/k/how-procter-and-gamble-survived-through-innovation-a-case-study # . [ Accessed 12 November 2011 ] . 2 ) Unilever planetary company web site. 2011. Unilever planetary company web site. [ ONLINE ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unilever. com/ . [ Accessed 12 November 2011 ] . 3 ) PG. com Home: sustainability. company. trade names. 2011. PG. com Home: sustainability. company. trade names. [ ONLINE ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. pg. com/en_US/index. shtml. [ Accessed 12 November 2011 ] . 4 ) 14 Principles of Management of Henri Fayol. . 2011. 14 Principles of Management of Henri Fayol. . [ ONLINE ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: / /www. citehr. com/137134-14-principles-management-henri-fayol. hypertext markup language. [ Accessed 12 November 2011 ] . 5 ) National Council Of Educational Research And Training: : Home. 2011. National Council Of Educational Research And Training: : Home. [ ONLINE ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //ncert. nic. in/NCERTS/textbook/textbook. htm? lebs1=2-8. [ Accessed 12 November 2011 ]

w 2 Vietnam Essays

History c/w 2 Vietnam Essays History c/w 2 Vietnam Essay History c/w 2 Vietnam Essay There are many factors which came together to explain why the US withdrew its forces from Vietnam in 1972. In the short term the US withdrew because the conditions in 1973 were right and Nixons election campaign was approaching. 1973 was a good year for both parties to pull out of the war as peace terms had been agreed by both sides. Linked to these short-term factors were long term factors, which included financial, social and military reasons. All these long-term term factors had been gradually becoming worse running up to 1973. For example by the end of the war, it was costing $30 billion every year to continue fighting the war, also people t home and even the soldiers in Vietnam had, had enough and many wanted to see the end of the war.A long-term reason why the US withdrew from Vietnam in 1973 is their failure to win the war. I say they failed to win to war as, in1973 at the time of the withdraw, they werent winning.There were many reasons why the US was losing. The first reason why they were losing was due to the tactic being used by both sides. The US had a huge army with modern weapons, whilst in contrast the Vietcong had a small army with old weapons. In this respect the US were by far superior to the Vietcong.However the Vietcong were used to fighting in the jungle environment of Vietnam. The Vietcong gained these skills when they defended Vietnam from the French after WWII to keep it from the French empire. The Vietcong guerrilla tactics became more advanced over time as the Vietcong learnt how to use them against their enemy. The Vietcong used booby traps, such as Charlie sticks and trip wires. They also used to ambush the US troops and then disappear again.The US used totally different tactics; they used a huge bombing campaign as their main tactic. In fact the campaign was so large more weight of bombs was dropped during the Vietnam War than during the whole of the entire Second World War. However conventional bombs didnt d estroy the forest, in which the Vietcong hid, which is what the US needed to do. To destroy forest the US used Napalm, but Napalm didnt only burn forest and soldiers but it also killed civilians.The US were used to urban warfare and not jungle warfare, whilst on the other hand Vietcong used to jungle warfare not urban warfare.This important and decisive difference was shown most clearly during the Tet Offensive. The Tet Offensive was where North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. This took the fight to the South Vietnamese army in the towns and populated areas and out of the jungle. In this offensive the Vietcong were out classed by superior US firepower. This huge defeat against the Vietcong caused morale amongst the Vietcong army to fall.However the Vietcong soldiers werent the only ones with low morale, the US also had low morale amongst the solders, which was due to the jungle warfare and tactics. There were other causes for the low morale. One of the other reasons were drugs, as th ere were drugs circulating around the camps. The second reason is fragging. Fragging is where soldiers shot their officers, the soldiers did this because the officers wanted to see action in the war in order to help there careers, however the soldiers wanted to see as little action as possible as this made it more likely that theyd get home safely. This wouldve made the US withdraw form Vietnam because you cant fight a war where soldiers have low morale, as the soldiers dont want to fight. In fact the soldiers didnt want to fight so much that they ended up shooting their officers to prevent them from fighting.The low morale amongst the US troops was worsened by the fact that the US troops didnt know what they were fighting for any more. This view came about when the US troops realised that they had no support from the South Vietnamese peasants. The soldiers understood that they had been sent into Vietnam to protect the South Vietnamese people, from North Vietnam and the communism th at the North wished to impose upon the South Vietnamese people. However the soldiers asked themselves why they were trying to prevent this, since it was clear that most of the South Vietnamese people wanted to become communism. The fact that the soldiers didnt know what they where fighting for and that the south Vietnamese people wanted to be communist wouldve made the US withdraw from Vietnam in 1973. This is because now their justifications and reasons for the war didnt exist as the US troops were fighting for a country whos residents resented the presence of the US troops, due to the fact that they wanted to become what the US were trying to prevent.This failure or inability to win the war had severe effects back at home in the US.For the first real time in history a war could be seen back home on the news. These clips and footage of the war were uncensored, unlike the clips of WWII. This meant that people not only saw the successes and failures of the US army, but they also saw the horrors of the war. All these pictures of horrors of the Vietnamese war had their own impact on the US people. As more people began to see how bad the war was, the more people there were attempting to avoid it, the most famous of these people was Muhammad Ali, the boxer, who refused to fight in Vietnam when his draft letter came through. These people were called draft dodgers. These people were called this because they attempted to avoid the draft, which was a letter, which came through the post telling you that you had to serve a tour of duty, which was one years service in Vietnam. There were many ways in which people could avoid the draft; if you were a teacher, lifeguard, in the police force or if you were in the fire service were among the ways in which you could avoid the draft. Another way people attempted to avoid the draft was to burn the letter when it came through the post.On March 16th 1968, just South of Khe Sahn an American patrol approached My Lai. The battle for Khe Sahn and the Tet offensive were still raging. The patrol entered the village and killed 347 men, women and children. Some of the women had been raped first. Other reports say that the number of dead stands at over 500 innocent people. The My Lai massacre changed opinion in the US because it showed the atrocities of the war and what was really happening over in Vietnam. Also the massacre showed that Americans werent always the good guys, as here they are murdering innocent people. Some were now wondering how true it is that the Americans are the good guys if their soldiers were responsible for massacres like My Lai. However My Lai wasnt an isolated incident as the picture of the suspected Vietcong was shot by an American without a trail. When the picture reached the US it looked like the execution of a man who hadnt been tried.All this and the horrors of the Tet offensive made the Americans back home question why there were US soldiers fighting and ultimately dying in Vietnam.Pic tures and events like My Lai caused lots of unrest amongst the US people. This unrest was shown through riots, marches and protests, which went ahead all over America. These demonstrations gave rise to the hippy movement, which favoured peace and love instead of war. One example of these protests is the Ohio university demonstration in which students were expressing their views when the US National Guard opened fire on the protesters killing some of them. Therefore because of the war Americans were killing Americans, which wouldve made the US withdraw from the war as this shows how bad people, thought the war was.On the other hand the media was concentrating on the war and these demonstrations, which meant that the Civil Rights Movement lost its interest amongst the media. Therefore the Civil Rights Movement lost press interest and people became more interested in the war.This point leads me onto the racially related reasons why the US withdrew from Vietnam in 1973. The black commun ity were unhappy with the war because proportionally more blacks were being sent to Vietnam than any other social or ethnic group. This would have made the black community unhappy with the Vietnam War because it wouldve meant more blacks were being sent to Vietnam than were supposed to be.We can tell that some blacks were upset because martin Luther king made a speech in which he expressed his view that he was concerned that the black US soldiers were being sent over to Vietnam. They were being sent in order to fight for a sense freedom for the Vietnamese people, which they do not even have for them selves. Still in todays world proportionally more blacks are in the US army than any other ethnic group.This wasnt the only reason the black community had to be upset about; Johnsons great reform was cut back. The aim of the great reform was to end racial segregation and inequality in the US. The combination of all the social and racial reasons would have made the US withdraw from Vietna m, as the pressure on the government from the black community and the civil rights movement would have been immense. Also many people felt the war was pointless and more than good was coming from it.Another reason why the US people would have been unhappy with the war was that no new public buildings were being built. For example no new schools, hospitals, swimming pools etc were being built.These public buildings werent being built due to the fact that the government spending had been cut to fund the war effort. Therefore the US public were suffering direct effects of the Vietnam War, which they wouldnt of liked, making them opposed to the war. The government had to cut their spending on the public buildings because the war was draining funds. In fact the war cost $120 billion overall and by the end of the war it was costing $30 billion per year. Cost however isnt only measured in money; the cost can also be measured in human lives. An estimate at the end of the war stood at 58,132 US people lost their lives in Vietnam and many more were injured.The cost of the war wouldve made the US withdraw from Vietnam because the financial cost of the war was severely denting the US economy and the US were keen to pull out so that they could save money. The death toll on the US people was getting to high.So far I have only explained the long-term reasons why the US withdrew from Vietnam. On top of that I have given general reasons for why the US withdrew from Vietnam but the question asks why in 1973. To answer this part of the question there are a selection of short-term reasons. The first of these short-term reasons was presidential elections. Nixon wanted to stay in power for another four years and to do this he had to win the presidential elections in November 1972. To win Nixon knew he had to quit the war. This is because in the 1968 elections president Johnson decided not to stand at the elections because of the war. Nixon won the elections by promising to pull US troops out of the war, so to fulfil his promise he had to show that US troops were leaving or were on the verge of leaving. If Nixon didnt sign a peace treaty and exit the war there was no way he would be able to win the elections. Therefore one reason why the US withdrew from Vietnam in 1973 was because president Nixon wanted to win the next election and he knew pulling out was the only way he could win the elections.The fact that Nixon wanted peace was helped by the fact that the North Vietnamese were willing to agree peace terms with the US. To put pressure on the North Vietnamese government the US began a huge bombing campaign so that the North would submit to US demands. The campaign was massive; more bombs were dropped in the 11 days of this campaign than there had been in the rest of the Vietnam War. Eventually peace terms were agreed which included a cease-fire between both sides, US troops would leave within 60 days of this cease-fire, elections would be held in the South t o choose a new government. Also in the terms was that all US Prisoners Of War would be freed, and there were almost 700 of these. This term let Nixon partly achieve his peace with honour idea that the US would withdraw from Vietnam without total surrender.However not everyone was happy with these terms, Thieu, president of South Vietnam, was upset by the terms of the cease-fire because he believed the terms would leave south Vietnam at the mercy of the North Vietnamese. He knew that the terms would ultimately lead to the end of South Vietnam as the North would invade the south and the North would easily win. Nixon overcame this by telling Thieu that if he didnt sign the agreement then the US would sign it without him, Thieu was forced to sign it. This wouldve contributed to the US withdrawing from Vietnam in 1973 as they signed the peace treaty on 27th January 1973, which meant they could now withdraw as they had signed a peace treaty with the North.Nixon could now withdraw from Vie tnam, but if he simply just pulled all US troops out of Vietnam in one go then the South Vietnamese army would be easily beaten by the Vietcong. So what Nixon proposed to do was to introduce Vietnamisation, which was where US troops gradually withdrew from Vietnam and at the same time US troops would train up the South Vietnamese army so that they could carry on fighting the war once the US had left.In 1971 the US approved an invasion of Laos by South Vietnam, which was aimed at blocking the Ho Chi Minh trail, which was the main supply route to the Vietcong. US had been bombing the trail since 1964 but these were the first ground forces. After six weeks the South Vietnamese withdrew, almost 50% of the soldiers were killed or wounded. This huge failure by the south Vietnamese army proved to many that the south Vietnamese couldnt stand up to the Vietcong without the US. Due to this invasion the North Vietnamese felt that vietnamisation would be a good thing because they realised that the South Vietnamese army would be easy to defeat once the US withdrew from Vietnam.I have explained why the US withdrew from Vietnam in 1973. The reasons for this ranged from racial reasons to the presidential elections of 1972. All these reasons fell into two categories: long term and short term reasons. These categories can be explained like a football game. The build up to a goal is the long-term effect of a goal, whilst the short-term effect of a goal is the shot. I have considered the significance of the reasons and concluded that factors working together have led to the point where the US feels they have to withdraw from Vietnam. However I have I felt the timing of the withdraw was significant. I say this because of the elections which where approaching. Nixons main reason to withdraw was that he wanted to win another session in power. Nixon also felt that these elections were a point where the US could move on from the Vietnam War. These facts therefore raise the question th at would the US have withdrew from Vietnam that year if there werent any elections?My view on this is that I believe they wouldnt have withdrawn from Vietnam if there hadnt been presidential elections in that year. Another reason why I felt the timing of the withdraw was so significant was that a new super power had arisen onto the international stage. The US felt that if it pulled out of the Vietnam war it would be easier to make friends with China as they were next to Vietnam and wouldnt have liked that fact that the US were waging a war so close to them. Also China was a communist country and they were trying to prevent communism spreading in Vietnam, which wouldve made China weary of the US, as they obviously didnt like communism. This also raises the question what would have happened if China, a new super power, didnt arise at that time. Would this have left the US with less incentive to leave the war and withdraw from Vietnam in 1973?

Consensual Relationship Agreements Article Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Consensual Relationship Agreements - Article Example And so it is with life in the office today. Try as we might, most of us in open and free Western societies cannot help feeling attraction for each other. Love happens- even in the workplace- and in fact is quite a common occurrence. To quote the British poet George Herbert, ‘love and a cough’ certainly ‘cannot be hid’. A CRA is short for a Consensual Relationship Agreement. Consensual Relationship Agreements are written contracts enforceable in the workplace and generally drawn up by Human Resources Departments with a view to preventing or avoiding liability or litigation with respect to sexual harassment and other disagreements arising from a love relationship gone sour between partners in the workplace. It’s a way of trying to ensure that love and work don’t mix. But as they say, it is easier said than done. We cannot separate feelings and emotions from the man or the woman or separate his or her home and family life. Some organizations even ban husband and wife from working in the same firm, but obviously, one cannot predict or prevent personal relationships from forming as a consequence of spending 40 hours or more together or in close proximity with each other- hence the need for the CRA or Contractual Relationship Agreement. Human Resource Departments have taken to include CRAs as part of their joining package so that both employees and employer know their rights and liabilities on this account. It is, however, futile to prevent romantic relationships in the workplace because surveys indicate that as much as 47 percent of employees have engaged in a romantic relationship in the workplace at some time in their lives while 19 percent would consider it. One might consider whether or not CRAs are really needed in the workplace. Most Human Resource professionals would definitely say so in the light of some not so pleasant incidents that had occurred in  the workplace, for which the organization was also unwittingly made a partner in crime. In other words, the plaintiff not only sued the former co-worker/ love partner but also the organization in which the relationship took place.