Get help from the best in academic writing.

Characterization of Hamlet Analytical Essay

Hamlet is without a doubt the best theatrical character ever produced. From the moment we encounter the humble prince we are entrapped by his graceful power. He meets the death of his father with rage and indignation yet he shows no emotion for the people that he kills. He uses the frail and naïve Ophelia as an avenue to vent his anger towards the queen, and cannot understand that his own bitter words have made her insane.

Hamlet’s character is filled with faults. By closely examining his faults, one is quick to notice that the faults are inborn. Throughout the play, Hamlet seems to carry in him a burden that is too big for him. Despite his attempt at bravery, he is weak willed and unable to make some important decisions.

When Hamlet learns in a dream that he is supposed to revenge the death of his father, he promises to do so “with wings as swift as meditation or the thoughts of love, may sweep to my revenge.” To Hamlet, even his life’s dreams and destiny cannot be compared to this new pursuit.

Immediately after this discovery, Hamlet is at a loss as to why he has to be the one chosen to exert this revenge. This is the first indication we get that Hamlet has a weakness in his character.

Instead of seeking for ways to kill the person who murdered his father, Hamlet begins to wonder why a sane person can commit such an act. To a careful eye, this is something meant to procrastinate his revenge mission.

This is something that even Hamlet cannot seem to comprehend. Upon realizing that he is dreading carrying out his mission, he comforts himself by saying that he is no coward. Hamlet postpones this mission further by seeking to verify the words of the ghost. However, the trap that he sets to confirm this soon ‘snaps’ but he still cannot make a meaningful decision.

Even though Hamlet learns that his mother was an accomplice in his father’s death, she dissuades him from killing her. Although we might all conclude that Hamlet is overtaken by love for his mother, this is something that does not befit a hero.

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More A true hero should not let emotions come in the way of his assignment. Upon learning of his mother’s role in the death of his father, he knows that he has to punish the perpetrators regardless of their identity.

When he gets this opportunity to “drink hot blood, and do such bitter business as the day”, he fails to master the courage needed to achieve this. At this moment, his mind seems to be a battlefield. On one hand, he knows that he has to avenge the death of his father while on the other he has no courage to do it.

Hamlet promises to be “cruel, not unnatural and to speak daggers at his mother but act none.” This is a sign of cowardice on Hamlets part. In order to hide his true feelings from his mother, he decides to pretend that he is insane.

Immediately after the episode at his mother’s house, another opportunity presents itself for revenge. This time, it is only Hamlet and the king in an enclosed temple where there is no route for escape. Coincidentally, Hamlet goes behind the king and draws his sword ready to strike. In a real life event, this is the moment when we all draw our breath and close our eyes in anticipation of seeing fresh blood.

However, a few moments later, Hamlet brings us back to reality by claiming that “now might I do it pat, now he is praying; And now I will do’t: and so he goes to heaven.” Always having excuses to justify his procrastination, he tells us that he fears killing the king in a moment of repentance. This is a sign of weakness and indecision on Hamlets part.

If hamlet had been genuine about his desire to kill the king while he was in the process of committing iniquity, it is only right that we see this promise being manifested at least in one scene.

At one time, the ghost appears while Hamlet is talking to his mother. Even Hamlet himself knows he has procrastinated the revenge long enough but consoles himself by saying that he is no coward. In the monologue that follows his meeting with Fortinbras, he says that even being exiled to England would come as a respite.

We will write a custom Essay on Characterization of Hamlet specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More In order to prove that he is no coward he promises “O, from this time forth, my thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth.” This is a promise that we do not see Hamlet fulfilling anywhere in the play and hence our conclusion that he is weak willed and indecisive on what he should do.

Conclusion Hamlet is one of the greatest theatrical characters that have ever been created. The character has different sides to him that make him hard to be understood.

However, one thing that comes out about his character is his weakness and indecision on some important issues. This makes him to keep on procrastinating revenge on his father’s death. By the time he gets to exert the revenge, he is so late such that the real motive for the revenge has been forgotten.

Further Research Why does Hamlet kill Polonius? 5 38 Do you think Hamlet is a problem play or a tragedy? Why? 5 854 Does Hamlet Love Ophelia? 5 46 Why does Polonius think Hamlet is mad? 5 93 What does the first soliloquy reveal about Hamlet? 5 27 What conflict(s) does Hamlet Experience Inside Himself? 5 155

Formal Planning’s Strengths and Weakness Report

Nursing Assignment Help Table of Contents Introduction

The Human Element

Change from Conventional Paradigm

Spirit of Learning

Unpredictable Project Environment

Exclusion of Lower Level Managers’ Potential



Introduction Many organizations today spend a fortune in formal planning. In various contexts, organisations and researchers have had conflicting opinions on formal planning, with a faction affirming that it improves the overall profitability of a company (in addition to spurring project growth) while others note that it is not crucial at all in the realization of organizational goals (Mintzberg 1994, p. 150).

Before sides are taken in the evaluation of the importance of formal planning, it is crucial to analyze what does it primarily encompasses.

In the words of Armstrong (1982) “Formal strategic planning calls for an explicit process for determining the firm’s long-range objectives, procedures for generating and evaluating alternative strategies, and a system for monitoring the results of the plan when implemented” (p. 4).

Formal planning when analyzed in this context involves a clear articulation of project goals, visions, roles, location, time frames (and the likes), in a developed document or semi document outlining the steps to be followed in the implementation of a given project.

Usually, formal planning has been consistently analyzed alongside informal planning (a paradigm which erodes the importance of having formal plans in the first place), and many researchers have been divided between the merits and demerits of the two.

Informal planning permanently outlines all managerial elements that generally fail to be institutionalized in formal documents and most cases; it receives less exposure because of formal planning out shadows its usefulness since it is much visible and more clearly articulated (Johnson 2009, p. 66).

From this point of view, it is correct to dispute the emphasis created on formal planning because it is usually overrated at the expense of informal learning. These factors withstanding, this study advances the fact that formal education will not provide the intended outcome at a given point in time.

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More The Human Element Conventionally, formal planning has been based on the “process” element as opposed to the “human” element. This is a wrong basis because the success of a process is generally based on the input of the workers involved.

Moreover, humans invent “processes,” and therefore the success of a process depends on the humans involved. Scientists such as Taylor (cited in Campbell 2001, p. 99) have openly noted that one of the reasons why essential projects fail to attain their set out goals is because management focuses typically too much on the theoretical component of project success and fail to note the practical part of the same.

The theoretical component usually is facilitated or emphasized by the formal planning process. Conversely, the informal planning process tends to focus more on the practical aspect of project operations, and this is the essential element needed for the realization of project success.

From the number of large projects failing by the day, it is clear that most organizations fail to recognize the critical role humans play in the overall realization of organizational goals and the long-term global sustainability of business or project productivity. Campbell (2001, p. 100) also explains that in today’s fast-paced world, it is the human element of organizational processes that are going to sustain and catalyze the growth and success of organizations in the 21st century.

Change from Conventional Paradigm For a long time, formal planning has been the conventional paradigm in project operations and management. Today, research studies tend to affirm the notion that a shift from this paradigm is likely to translate to positive results for organizations, in the sense that, an emphasis on informal planning is expected to improve project performance (Campbell 2001, p. 100).

It is clear from recent research studies that formal planning has a precise articulation of roles and responsibilities that tend to be monotonous and less effective in the long run (Campbell 2001, p. 100). When this system is changed, research affirms that new skills and an improved sense of accountability will be realized (Hales 1993, p. 108).

What new research tends to portray is that a shift from conventional practices is likely to impose a new system to measure employee contribution, which will, in turn, increase the level of motivation and ultimately increase the performance of employees in the long run.

We will write a custom Report on Formal Planning’s Strengths and Weakness specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Formal planning is also quite monotonous with regards to the structure of control in the organization because it advances a cutout structure of authority where lower-level employees are subordinates to their bosses.

This system is deemed to be less effective than a random and flexible structure where there are no clear distinctions of authority because if such arrangements are abolished; all employees are made equal members of teams and work groups (encompassing peers from inside or outside of the organization). This new paradigm is likely to instill a new spirit of cooperation in the organization and create a hybrid system of performance which is supported and coordinated by all members of the organization.

Spirit of Learning Formal planning essentially amounts to months or even years of endless planning to come up with specific projections; maybe encompassing financial cash flows, human capital projections, inventory requirements, and the likes. However, all these estimations and years of endless planning may go to waste if the project follows a different course from that envisioned in the formal plan.

From this basis, critics have advanced the fact that experience is the best teacher and formal planning goes against this spirit (Campbell 2001, p. 102). They also promote the fact that continuous learning and experience is the key to project success and formal planning fails to merge with this spirit as well.

In this regard, there is a growing body of research advancing the fact that formal planning does not make much difference to project performance when compared to projects started without formal plans (Campbell 2001, p. 102).

Comparisons have also been made to businesses as is evidenced of Babson College which did a study, evaluating specific business parameters such as annual revenue, employee numbers net incomes (and the likes), and found out that there was no significant difference in the above parameters, when comparing businesses which started with formal plans and those which didn’t (Wall Street, 2010, p. 9).

They, therefore, recommend that unless a business intends to seek to start up capital from a financial institution (say a bank) they do not need to come up with a formal business plan (Wall Street, 2010, p. 9).

Unpredictable Project Environment Many critics of formal planning have consistently questioned the need for formal planning if the business environment is increasingly unpredictable. They, therefore, advance the fact that formal planning in the determination of future project productivity is mostly fruitless if the future is variable in the first place (Smit 2007, p. 113).

Not sure if you can write a paper on Formal Planning’s Strengths and Weakness by yourself? We can help you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Some formal plans may, therefore, render some projects utterly useless because they may fail to consider the unpredictable nature of future project environment. For instance, Smit (2007, p. 113) notes that it is quite challenging to apply formal planning to tourism projects in Africa because of the political uncertainty of the continent.

He refers to the war uncertainty in Congo and the lack of petrol in Zimbabwe which makes formal planning an impossible process because these uncertainties are mostly unforeseeable in the long run and short run. Smit (2007) further affirms that “Setting oneself on a predetermined course in unknown waters is the perfect way to sail straight into an iceberg” (p. 114).

It is, therefore, crucial for project managers to acknowledge the level of uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity of the project environment because these elements have a very unpredictable and immense impact on the overall outcome of the project. In this context, it is correct to note that even the most carefully thought out formal plans are not immune to being rendered useless by random and unpredictable changes in the project environment.

When this type of unpredictable and unprecedented changes are evident, project managers are supposed to be on toes by being able to effectively and promptly adjust to changes in the project environment by altering their project strategies to suit the new situations.

This kind of flexibility mostly lacks in formal planning because formal planning is very rigid and involves clearly articulated project steps; regardless of the nature of the project environment. This is likely to lead to high levels of project productivity; an element which may be easily brushed off at the initial stages of formal planning processes.

Hill (2008, p. 11) makes reference to this situation by citing Microsoft’s Chief executive officer, Bill Gates’ dramatic change of strategy, prompted by the 1994 – 1995 unprecedented emergence of the world wide web (www) where he dramatically changed the company’s strategy to deal with the new operations environment effectively. It later ultimately turned out as the antidote for Microsoft to deal with the latest changes in the information technology environment).

Critics of formal planning processes say that such a dramatic change of strategy was not possible if Bill Gates operated under a formal planning process because, under the paradigm, Bill gate’s new strategy could not be accommodated within that specific period (Hill 2008, p. 11).

This is true because usually under formal planning processes, the formal plan can only be reviewed annually, and before such a time reaches, the overall project strategies cannot be changed (Hill 2008, p. 11).

Exclusion of Lower Level Managers’ Potential Many critics of the formal planning process have pointed out the fact that many formal plans emphasize a lot on the input of top-level managers and rarely factor in the potential lower-level managers can bring into project operations (Hill 2008, p. 11).

New research studies point out that formal planning can probably plunge project operations processes into low levels of productivity because lower-level managers have a profound degree of influence over the overall realization of project productivity (Bass 2008, p. 315).

For instance, Robert Bulgelman of Stanford University cited in (Hill 2008, p. 11) gives an example where Intel’s CEO, Andy Grove, together with his top-level management team, devised a strategy to enter the DRAM memory chip market (a move which was to plunge the company into financial problems because of the unreliability of the market) but was talked out of it when lower level managers discouraged the top-level management team and the company’s CEO out of the move (thereby saving the company millions of dollars in investments which were to be lost in the venture).

Instead, they advised the company to venture into the market of RISCH-based microprocessors; a move which saw the company soar into high levels of profitability. This move also saw Microsoft Company move its strategies to be of conformance to internet innovation (Hill 2008, p. 11).

From this analysis, formal planning, therefore, makes many project managers rigid to the input of lower-level managers (a move which may potentially be fatal for the company as can be evidenced in the Intel case study analysis) and project managers need to change tact to avert such eventualities.

Conclusion This study notes that formal planning can potentially render projects utterly useless if they are followed to the latter. This study sources its strengths and arguments from the fact that the project environment today is very unpredictable and requires a lot of flexibility by project managers to attain optimum levels of project success.

Formal planning’s most significant weakness comes from its high level of rigidity and its high emphasis on top level management’s decisions (and more so, the CEO’s); an attribute which is potentially dangerous for project operations. From this point of view, it is correct to note that formal planning will not always provide the outcomes required at a given moment in time.

References Bass, B. (2008) The Bass Handbook Of Leadership: Theory, Research, And Managerial Applications. New York, Simon, and Schuster.

Campbell, S. (2001). New Developments In Reengineering Organizations. Management Research News, 24(3), 99–103.

Hales, C. (1993) Managing Through Organisation: The Management Process, Forms Of Organisation, And the Work of Managers. London, Taylor