Dr. Dalia Mabrouk

In this paper, I embark on diving deep into the specific training model of the systematic approach to training for probing more perspectives of its governance that should connect and link its phases together. Actually this training model is applied by many organizations all around the world that require a high level of professional trained staff with a minimal standard deviation of processes. I am here concerned with those organizations seeking a better training system, while ending up being superficially satisfied with reverberating and bragging with having the SAT onboard without full awareness of the possibilities of its implementation. It is not about the system, it is about the mindsets that are flexible enough to fully grasp the ins and outs of the model they are about to use and how to harness its tools for their organizational benefit; otherwise it’s a waste of time, effort and money. In order to operate training in a systematic manner, it has to not only cover the inter related stages and processes, but also set a solid bridge that keeps and maintains the smooth landing from one stage to another along with securing the prospected outputs which conforms to both form and content. Based on my experience on the best practices of the systematic approach to training, I will here contribute my insight of the system quality control technique that may help in a well-knitted flow of processes.

In this paper, I tackle the relationship between East and West froma cultural perspective.Though the difference is wide, they have in common a considerable number of social norms. Trying to make a focuson how the West regards the East on the level of normal individuals, I analyse Kim Barnes’ novel “In the Kingdom of Men”. Her protagonists migrate from hometown ‘Oklahoma’ to ‘Saudi Arabia’ or as we may call “Westerners go East”. It also an amalgam of racism, corporate colonialis m, culture clash, class issue, religion, grief and loss.

In this paper, I try to support Gerard Genette's conception of focalization, that was first proposed by him in his book Narrative Discourse (1980). Focalization is known as the perspective of the narrator in fiction. It includes a comparative study of layers of focalization in multicultural perspectives by analysing the narratological techniques in two of the most controversial novels. Those novels represent two worlds apart; one is AlaaAlaswany’sYacobian Building and the other is Malcolm Lowry’s Under the Volcano. In both novels, the narrators are absent from the two stories told. These narrators are depersonalized and they are lacking definable personalities and opinions.

My ultimate concern in this research is to investigate the culture of fear that we live in and how it impacts our vocational callings. Why the fear of failing can be immobilizing, or can paralyze us to do nothing, and therefore fall a prey to inner devastation between fulfilling our self-image belief and securing our daily responsibilities. This fear goes harshly against the inner psychological need that drives us to maximize our personal abilities and resources which may vary from one person to another. Ironically implementing the basics of organizational psychology aims to increase productivity and develop and train employees professionally. Instead there must be a huge consideration to the varied work stress that derives many to fall into deep depression. In this study I try to come closer to a clearer picture of what triggers this fear stress; is it work load or the way managers approach employees? Does a narcissist manager or any other person aggravate this stress by feeding an environment of fear that paralyzes others’ talents and capabilities? Is every individual responsible for fencing his own boundaries from any external fear threat that may attack him? Or the real threat comes from one’s own inner thoughts, supposing that we could easily block outer irritations.

This paper will focus on the notion of toxic masculinity that has a lot to do with deforming the male identity figure. I am here really concerned with probing within the need of conforming with the traditional masculinity ideology in the East and the West, and how it hinders males from discovering what it means to be a male. Actually, the scope of research in this paper exceeds one culture to include both the Western and the Eastern cultures, which have proved with evidence to share many attributes. I am also revealing how this masculinity has been misinterpreted over the years to encompass weird attitudes and behaviors as suppressing emotions or masking distress or showing violence as an indicator of power. How the idea of the necessity of being “tough all the time” may affect their mental and psychological wellbeing and what is less than that could stigmatize them for being “feminine” or “weak”. In this paper, I will also try to reveal how great sector of women unintentionally feeds this ego of toxic masculinity to their sons since childhood days. By connecting all these factors to the development of the characters in Victor Surge’s novel “Men in Prison”, we are simply highlighting the psychological dimension and consequences of suppressed men. It is regarded as an unfiltered view of humanity in the early 20th century. The depraving brutality that Serge experienced behind bars is mirroring a society subduing men in various levels. I hopefully seek to break down factors that trap men in a certain framework out of which there is no escape.

In this paper, I am reflecting on Abraham Zaleznik’s paper “managers and leaders: are they different?” He was a prominent Harvard business school professor who attacked management style for depending only on rationality and achieving goals. He believed that managers and leaders are totally different persons. He described managers as inscrutable, detached and manipulative. Plus, while managers are interested in control and how things are done, leaders are more concerned with ideas and innovation. I try to probe into various questions related to both management and leadership to approach a clearer opinion for these inquires: do managers and leaders really have completely different personalities? Or are they both competing for the same target of getting work done through people? Is management upgradable with more knowledge and hard work? Are leaders more empathetic than managers? What makes managers inscrutable and manipulative? Is this innate or acquired? In which way leaders are different? Seems a huge task but I will tackle this issue by conducting a comparative study among two prominent figures as Sheikh Zayed Al Nahyan and Nelson Mandela. I will trace some points of similarities and differentiations based on the timeless lessons from their life stories that will endure for years to come. Both were gifted visionary individuals who exercised full range of cognitive, emotional and behavioral abilities to bring about profound change in their countries.