190,949 Wikipedia Articles Preserved

Bu Kyoku Ryu is a martial arts style developed in 1981. It is a combination style, blending Japanese, Okinawan, Korean and Chinese martial arts. Bu Kyoku Ryu aims to utilize the best techniques from a range of styles for maximum results.
Etymology
The translations of the Bu Kyoku Ryu comes from meanings of both Chinese & Japanese characters.

Bu, meaning military art; Budokai is a military arts person who can practice several different styles.
Kyoku, meaning the best from many arts combining them into one.
Ryu, meaning style, school or way. It also means a formal tradition.
Roughly, Bu Kyoku Ryu translates to "best mixed military tradition"
Focus
Bu Kyoku Ryu focuses on blending the best techniques from multiple styles.
Weapons
Weapons training in Bu Kyoku Ryu for ranks up to Shodan traditionally includes:
- staff (')
- sai
- kama
- wooden sword (bokken).

Related Dojos
- World Class Martial Arts Academy of Georgia (formerly Dave Young's World Class Karate) -- north Georgia - Z's Martial Arts Club -- Wheeling, Illinois

Much of what people do in society is a reflection of what they see in popular media. The way they dress, do their hair, or just live their life. Fifty years ago, popular media was telling women that staying home to cook, clean, and raise the kids should be their dream (Friedan 198). If they had the opportunity to do that, why would they need something else? In light of the feminist movement, one might ask; has this trend changed? Are women today different because more of them are going to school and getting multiple degrees? Friedan discussion about unsatisfied women in the 1950’s can be used as a lens to view women today. Women today are still faced with the same media expectations about how to be good mothers and wives. Still today, women who work are seen as bad mothers because they are neglecting their children (Douglas 237). However, it is not just women who work, women who stay home to raise their children can be bad mothers too if they don’t to everything just perfectly. The notions of femininity the sparked Friedan’s essay are still bothering many educated women today and not allowing them to fully enjoy motherhood and their careers.
In many colleges, more than half the graduates are women. However, in the work force less than half the employees are women (Belkin 2003). Why is there such a big gap between the women earning degrees and the women working? Many women start working after college, but then quit to raise their children after they get married. Lisa Belkin discusses this in her article, “The Opt-Out Revolution.” She interviews a group of eight women who graduated from Princeton and finds that only one is still working at her same job and she has not children (Belkin 2003). The others have quit their jobs to stay at home and raise their children. When asked why they chose to do this, most said it was just too overwhelming to do both (Belkin 2003). Keeping up with the standards of being a good mother are hard enough for a stay at home mother let alone a working mother. This might make one ask whether or not these women are also dealing with the “problem that has no name?” Once they quit their jobs and stay at home all day dealing with all the domestic issues, are they feeling empty and craving more? According to Belkin, several of the women she interviewed, talked about leaving their jobs regretfully. Times have changed, but trends have not really changed at all. Women are still forced to choose between home and work.
These women that choose their homes over their works are faced with popular notions of femininity and how they are applied to parenting. Friedan discusses the challenges women were constantly faced with in the 1950’s. They were showed how to be perfect mothers and wives and how to look good while doing it. They were told that they shouldn’t want anything more that a husband, some kids, and a house in the suburbs (Friedan 199). Women are told pretty much the same things today, but the only difference is the way they are told. Back then, the idea of staying home was directly taught to young girls (Friedan 201). Today, women are told to they should stay at home more indirectly by using things like commercials for house products that only target women (Douglas 239). Also, popular media has not stopped dictating what separates a good mother from a bad one. Mothers are still faced with outrageous standards of parenting (Douglas 238). They are expected to discipline their children to make good citizens without yelling or spanking. If children do something wrong, the first person people look at is the mother (Douglas 238). Not only are they supposed to run a perfect household, but also they are still expected to look good while doing it. TV shows like Desperate Housewives show housewives taking care of their children, cleaning, and cooking while wearing tight tops, jeans, three inch heals, flawless makeup, and long extensions that make her hair look perfect. In reality, that picture is far from the truth. It is impractical to expect a woman to wear those clothes and look like that while she has to do all this work and women understand this, but there is a bar that is set and many women feel like they have to meet it (Douglas 242).
Friedan argues that women want more than their husbands and children. They need more. Things must change in order for women to achieve this goal. She discussed this about fifty years ago. Things did change. More women started going to school, graduated with degrees, and married at a much later age. However, some things didn’t change. Most of these women still end up in the suburbs as stay at home mothers, and they are still faced with the same scrutiny as mothers of previous generations.
Much of what people do in society is a reflection of what they see in popular media. The way they dress, do their hair, or just live their life. Fifty years ago, popular media was telling women that staying home to cook, clean, and raise the kids should be their dream . If they had the opportunity to do that, why would they need something else? In light of the feminist movement, one might ask; has this trend changed? Are women today different because more of them are going to school and getting multiple degrees? Friedan discussion about unsatisfied women in the 1950’s can be used as a lens to view women today. Women today are still faced with the same media expectations about how to be good mothers and wives. Still today, women who work are seen as bad mothers because they are neglecting their children . However, it is not just women who work, women who stay home to raise their children can be bad mothers too if they don’t to everything just perfectly. The notions of femininity the sparked Friedan’s essay are still bothering many educated women today and not allowing them to fully enjoy motherhood and their careers.
In many colleges, more than half the graduates are women. However, in the work force less than half the employees are women . Why is there such a big gap between the women earning degrees and the women working? Many women start working after college, but then quit to raise their children after they get married. Lisa Belkin discusses this in her article, “The Opt-Out Revolution.” She interviews a group of eight women who graduated from Princeton and finds that only one is still working at her same job and she has not children . The others have quit their jobs to stay at home and raise their children. When asked why they chose to do this, most said it was just too overwhelming to do both . Keeping up with the standards of being a good mother are hard enough for a stay at home mother let alone a working mother. This might make one ask whether or not these women are also dealing with the “problem that has no name?” Once they quit their jobs and stay at home all day dealing with all the domestic issues, are they feeling empty and craving more? According to Belkin, several of the women she interviewed, talked about leaving their jobs regretfully. Times have changed, but trends have not really changed at all. Women are still forced to choose between home and work.
These women that choose their homes over their works are faced with popular notions of femininity and how they are applied to parenting. Friedan discusses the challenges women were constantly faced with in the 1950’s. They were showed how to be perfect mothers and wives and how to look good while doing it. They were told that they shouldn’t want anything more that a husband, some kids, and a house in the suburbs . Women are told pretty much the same things today, but the only difference is the way they are told. Back then, the idea of staying home was directly taught to young girls . Today, women are told to they should stay at home more indirectly by using things like commercials for house products that only target women
. Also, popular media has not stopped dictating what separates a good mother from a bad one. Mothers are still faced with outrageous standards of parenting . They are expected to discipline their children to make good citizens without yelling or spanking. If children do something wrong, the first person people look at is the mother
. Not only are they supposed to run a perfect household, but also they are still expected to look good while doing it. TV shows like Desperate Housewives show housewives taking care of their children, cleaning, and cooking while wearing tight tops, jeans, three inch heals, flawless makeup, and long extensions that make her hair look perfect. In reality, that picture is far from the truth. It is impractical to expect a woman to wear those clothes and look like that while she has to do all this work and women understand this, but there is a bar that is set and many women feel like they have to meet it
.
Friedan argues that women want more than their husbands and children. They need more. Things must change in order for women to achieve this goal. She discussed this about fifty years ago. Things did change. More women started going to school, graduated with degrees, and married at a much later age. However, some things didn’t change. Most of these women still end up in the suburbs as stay at home mothers, and they are still faced with the same scrutiny as mothers of previous generations.

The Leader Attribute Pattern approach is a perspective of understanding leader individual differences. It is different from traditional trait perspectives. Specifically, it is based on theorists' arguments that leaders are best studied as entire patterns of traits rather than examining individual traits. This allows for an understanding of leader traits that better reflects the reality of individuals as whole entities. A better understanding of leader traits has implications for leader development, selection, and training.
History of the Trait Theory of Leadership
Early History
:The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been ongoing for centuries. History’s greatest philosophical writings from Plato’s Republic to Plutarch’s Lives have explored the question of “What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?” Underlying this search was the early recognition of the importance of leadership and the assumption that leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess. This idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the “trait theory of leadership.”
:This view of leadership, the trait theory, was explored at length in a number of works in the previous century. Most notable are the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton. In Heroes and Hero Worship (1841), Carlyle identified the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. In Galton’s (1869) Hereditary Genius, he examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful men and ultimately concluded that leadership was inherited. In other words, leaders were born, not developed. Both of these notable works lent great initial support for the idea that leadership is rooted in characteristics of the leader.
:For decades, this trait-based perspective dominated leadership research and theory. Using early research techniques, researchers conducted over a hundred studies proposing a number of characteristics that distinguished leaders from nonleaders: intelligence, dominance, adaptability, persistence, integrity, socioeconomic status, and self-confidence just to name a few.
The Rise of Situational Leadership Theories
:In the late 1940s and early 1950s a series of qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird, 1940; Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959) caused researchers to take a drastically different view of the foundations of leadership. In reviewing the existing literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were consistently related to leadership, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations. As a result, leadership was no longer characterized as an stable, individual trait; situational approaches now suggested that individuals can be effective in certain situations, but not others. This situational approach dominated much of the leadership theory and research for the next few decades.
The Reemergence of the Trait Theory
:New methods were later developed that would ultimately reestablish the trait theory as the popular approach to leadership. For example, improvements in research design allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. Additionally, during the 1980s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. Meta-analyses allowed trait theorists to create a clearer picture of previous leadership research. Equipped with these new methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:
:::*Individuals emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks
:::*Significant relationships exist between leadership and such individual traits as:
::::*intelligence
::::*adjustment
::::*extraversion
::::*conscientiousness
::::*openness to experience
::::*general self-efficacy
Criticisms of the Trait Theory
:While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, it is still criticized for a number reasons..
:Specifically, Zaccaro (2007) noted that trait theories still:
::#Focus on a small set of individual attributes such as Big Five personality traits, neglecting cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and problem-solving skills
::#Fail to consider patterns of multiple attributes
::#Do not distinguish between those leader attributes that are generally constant over time and those that are influenced by the situation
::#Do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the wide variety of behaviors seen in effective leaders
Leader Attribute Pattern Approach
:Considering the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above, several researchers have begun to take a different perspective of leader individual differences - the leader attribute pattern approach. In contrast to the trait approach, the leader attribute pattern approach views the person as a specific combination of individual traits. In other words, the leader attribute pattern approach argues that combinations of individual differences may explain substantial variance in both leader emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that explained by single attributes.
The Pattern Approach and Trait Theory Criticisms
Broader Conceptualizations of Traits
:In response to the first criticism of the trait theory - narrow set of traits- the pattern approach takes a broader perspective of leader traits. Recent conceptualizations of leader traits describe the construct as inclusive of a variety of personal qualities that promote leader effectiveness. Consistent with this perspective, the pattern approach moves beyond considering only personality attributes and includes motives, values, cognitive abilities, expertise, social and problem solving skills as traits.
:Clearly, this approach blurs the distinction between personality, skills, competencies, and expertise. Figure 1 identifies sets of leader attributes including: cognitive capacities, dispositional qualities, motives, values, skills, social capacities, and tacit knowledge. Reviews by Bass (1990), Zaccaro (2001), Zaccaro et al. (2004), and Yukl (2006) have identified specific attributes that are subsumed by these larger sets. While by no means exhaustive, Figure 2 provides a summary of particular attributes relative to the primary sets of traits identified in the leader attribute model.
Consideration of Pattern Integrations
:Addressing the second criticism of the trait theory, the leader attribute pattern approach to examining leadership conceptualizes an individual as a totality rather than a simple summation of attributes. This approach argues that constellations of individual attributes can explain substantial variance in leadership outcomes (i.e., emergence and effectiveness) beyond a simple variable (i.e., bivariate), or additive combination of attributes.
:Recent research has demonstrated the utility of this leader attribute pattern approach across leadership effectiveness and emergence criteria.
:::*Individuals who exhibited high levels of meta-cognition, tolerance for ambiguity, and social intelligence were associated with higher ratings of leader performance, while individuals who scored low on any one or two of the studied attributes performed no better than those individuals who were low on all three.
:::*Individuals with a pattern of high intelligence, high dominance, and high general self-efficacy emerged as leaders significantly more frequently than all other patterns of individuals.
:::*Additional predictive patterns of attributes have included motivational needs, intelligence-gender role, and intelligence-dominance-general self efficacy- self-monitoring.
Recent Theoretical Developments
Malleability and Stability of Traits
:While previous research on the pattern approach has shown promise, the construction of these patterns has lacked any theoretical foundation. That is, it is unclear as to why a set attributes should be examined as a pattern. Recent theoretical developments by Zaccaro et al., (2004) on the influence of traits on leadership criteria provide a foundation in which to construct such “patterns.” Effectively, such an approach can address yet another concern raised on the leader trait literature - malleability of traits over time and the role situational influences.
:The model in Figure 1 identifies several integrated sets of attributes, including dispositional (i.e., personality), cognitive capacities, motives and values, problem-solving skills, social capacities, and tacit knowledge. As implied by the model, some of the characteristics are more situationally bound than others. That is, the contribution of certain leadership attributes vary as a function of leadership situation demands. For example, expertise and tacit knowledge in a particular leadership situation may not be relevant in another. The model also identifies the importance of several distal attributes that exert a stable and significant influence on leadership, independent of situational influences. These distal attributes are thought to serve as foundational qualities which promote effectiveness across generic leadership situations.
:Further, this multi-stage model proposes that certain distal attributes (e.g., personality) serve as precursors for the development of more situationally bound (i.e., proximal) personal characteristics. It is believed that these proximal attributes, as opposed to distal attributes, are more amenable to change. This is reflected in leadership interventions that tend to focus on developing particular skills, expertise, and competencies.
Construction of Attribute Patterns
:Considering that certain leader attributes may differ in their relative stability over time and the degree to which they are specific to particular situations, the construction of leader attribute patterns necessitates not only contextual but also causal considerations. First, in constructing leader attribute patterns, it is crucial to consider what proximal leader attributes are necessary for the leadership demands of the situation. That is, selected proximal attributes must be theoretically grounded and relevant to the demands of the situation. Additionally, one must also consider more distal attributes that serve as precursors for the growth and development of situationally bound personal characteristics.

:The utilization of this framework can further develop the trait approach to examining leadership phenomenon. Based on examining the relationships between a series of variables, researchers will be able to identify optimal constellations of attributes that provide a more sophisticated approach in studying leadership traits. As leadership is a complex behavioral phenomenon, the pattern approach reflects this reality by looking at leadership traits as integrated within an individual rather than in existing in isolation.