Group, organization, or social setting of gaining power and influence

 

Part 1: During the semester, select a group, organization, or social setting and develop a goal of gaining power and influence. After selecting the group, set a measurable objective to accomplish by gaining power and influence (i.e., what will it look like if you succeed?). Next, use as many skills and tactics from the class as you can (including at least one that you rarely use and are uncomfortable with) to achieve your objective. In your paper, describe your objective as well as your thoughts and feelings prior to, during, and after your attempt to use these tactics to gain power and influence. Describe whether you were successful or not (either way is fine, so long as you learned from the experience). Summarize what you learned from your experience.

Part 2: Future Planning. Using both (1) your above experience and (2) the ideas and concepts from the class, write out a strategic plan for yourself as to how you will use the material to build your own path to power for your purpose. Some guiding thoughts: Examples could include what you will do specifically as part of your job finding process? What are you going to do as you enter your new organization? Are their places you want to build influence to change the status quo? In other words, how do you plan to put the ideas and concepts to work for you in your own life? Which ideas or concepts are you deliberately choosing NOT to put into practice, and why?

The organization that I selected is my major’s student association. I am the Vice President of the “student and alumni relation” in my student association. My major is “Social Entrepreneurship”.

 

Sample Solution

In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interests of all parties.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.