Interactional Model of Leadership
In your An Introduction to Group Work Practice text, the authors present information on the interactional model of leadership. What is this model, and how does it affect the process of the group? Provide an example that demonstrates your answer.
DISC2
Case Work and Group Work
What is the difference between case work and group work? What interventions you would use with each? How are those interventions alike, and how are they different?
Sample Solution
The Interactional Model of Leadership is a theory developed by Leslie G. Rubin and David M. Kopp which suggests that group dynamics are shaped not only by the behavior of the leader, but also through the relationships between individuals within the group as well (Rubin & Kopp 1992). This model proposes that effective leaders are those who create an environment conducive to open dialogue, fostering communication and collaboration amongst members in order to reach shared objectives (Rubin & Kopp 1992). It is further suggested that successful groups require social interaction between its participants in order for them to function effectively (Zuckerman et al., 2003).
One example demonstrating this would be a situation where a leader acts as a mediator to facilitate constructive conversations between two warring factions within their team. The leader acknowledges each person’s viewpoint while also providing insight into potential solutions or compromises which could help both parties move closer towards consensus overall. Through this process, it encourages meaningful discussion and understanding amongst members thus improving cohesion within the group over time ultimately leading to greater success down the road (Crosby & Bryson 2009). Therefore it is important for leaders to recognize how both positive and negative interactions can have an impact on individual performance as well as collective outcomes when managing teams overall.
up with a hypothesis, alongside pioneers today including Frowe (2011). Their hypothesis is formulated as an aide, regardless of whether we ought to do battle alongside conditions which should be thought of, how would it be a good idea for us we respond and not do during a conflict in the event that it is unavoidable, lastly what further move ought to be made later. To assess this hypothesis, one should take a gander at the suspicions made towards it, for instance, entertainers which scholars forget about and the delay between conventional scholars and innovators. In particular, there can be no conclusive hypothesis of the simply war, in light of the fact that everyone has an alternate understanding of this hypothesis, given its normativity. In any case, the hypothesis gives a harsh presentation of how we ought to continue in the midst of pressure and struggle, essentially the point of a simply war: 'harmony and security of the district' (Begby et al, 2006b, Page 310). Generally, this hypothesis is reasonable to utilize yet can't at any point be viewed as a characteristic aide since it's normatively conjectured. To respond to the inquiry, the exposition is involved 3 segments.
Jus promotion bellum
The beginning segment covers jus promotion bellum, the circumstances discussing whether an activity is legitimately OK to cause a conflict (Frowe (2011), Page 50). Vittola, first and foremost, examines one of the worthwhile motivations of war, in particular, is when damage is caused however he causes notice the damage doesn't prompt conflict, it relies upon the degree or proportionality, one more condition to jus promotion bellum (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314). Frowe, nonetheless, contends the possibility of "worthy motivation" in light of "Power" which alludes to the security of political and regional privileges, alongside common freedoms. In contemporary view, this view is more convoluted to reply, given the ascent of globalization. Essentially, it is hard to gauge proportionality, especially in war, in light of the fact that not just that there is an epistemic issue in working out, yet again the present world has created (Frowe (2011), Page 54-6). Besides, Vittola contends war is fundamental, not just for protective purposes, 'since it is legal to oppose force with force,' yet in addition to battle against the treacherous, a hostile conflict, countries which are not rebuffed for acting unreasonably towards its own kin or have shamefully taken land from the home country (Begby et al (2006b), Page 310&313); to "show its foes a thing or two," yet principally to accomplish the point of war. This approves Aristotle's contention: 'there should be battle for harmony (Aristotle (1996), Page 187). Nonetheless, Frowe contends "self-preservation" has a majority of portrayals, found in Part 1, demonstrating the way that self-protection can't necessarily legitimize one's activities. Much more risky, is the situation of self-protection in war, where two clashing perspectives are laid out: The Collectivists, a totally different hypothesis and the Individualists, the continuation of the homegrown hypothesis of self-preservation (Frowe (2011), Page 9& 29-34). All the more critically, Frowe discredits Vittola's view on retribution in light of the fact that right off the bat it enables the punisher's power, yet additionally the present world forestalls this activity between nations through lawful bodies like the UN, since we have modernized into a generally tranquil society (Frowe (2011), Page 80-1). Above all, Frowe further disproves Vittola through his case that 'right goal can't be blamed so as to take up arms in light of expected wrong,' recommending we can't simply hurt another in light of the fact that they have accomplished something unfair. Different elements should be thought of, for instance, Proportionality. Thirdly, Vittola contends that war ought to be stayed away from (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we ought to continue conditions carefully. This is upheld by the "final retreat" position in Frowe, where war ought not be allowed except if all actions to look for strategy falls flat (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This implies war ought not be pronounced until one party must choose the option to proclaim battle, to safeguard