Nursing Leadership and Management.

 

 

course Nursing Leadership and Management. Identify leaders you admire. List why and then relate those reasons to the RL attributes in this chapter. Do they fit into one or more of the relationship-based theories? Do their behaviors influence followers? How?

Made your response with a minimum of three paragraphs with three sentences each. The response should have references and citations.

#2- What are the similarities and differences between coaching and mentoring?

 

Sample Solution

Coaching and mentoring are often used interchangeably, however there are distinct differences between the two practices. Coaching is typically more focused on immediate tasks with the aim of achieving specific goals in the short-term whereas mentorship usually involves offering guidance and support over a longer period of time (De Janasz et al., 2017).

When it comes to similarities, both coaching and mentoring generally involve helping an individual or team improve their performance, satisfaction or outcomes. This can be done through providing advice, feedback or assistance when necessary (McCauley & Kinicki, 2013). Both also require people skills such as active listening which is essential for forming strong relationships with those being coached/mentored (Jabbour et al., 2019). Additionally, the outcome of either practice should be increased knowledge or understanding that benefits not only the individual but also the organization overall (Reeves & Bedeian, 2009)

The main difference between coaching and mentoring lies in how they are applied within an organization. Coaching typically focuses on developing new skills for an individual based on their current needs whereas mentorship involves teaching more generalizable concepts that can be applied in various contexts over time (Stolovitch & Keeps , 2011 ). Mentors have deeper relationships with those they work with which allows them to better assess long-term objectives while coaches tend to provide more immediate guidance on how to adapt and adjust existing processes accordingly(De Janasz et al., 2017).

ombatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
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 figh

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.