Organizational problem such as a difficult employee(s), a new initiative, and/or opportunity

at
Categories
Tags

 

Your leadership challenge may be an organizational problem such as a difficult employee(s), a new initiative, and/or opportunity. In identifying your challenge, position yourself as the leader with or without position power; if you don’t manage others, your challenge could address influencing colleagues. The challenge must include relationships with others; it is not a personal challenge such as finding a job. Although many students identify challenges they face in their workplace, some use other organizations in which they volunteer.In addition to clearly and concisely stating the leadership issue, initiative, and/or opportunity as illustrated in the examples below, briefly discuss areas of concern, key players (names optional), and your goal(s) in addressing the challenge. This description can be used to describe the challenge or situation in your Week 5 paper.Here are some examples of leadership issues other students have successfully used without any details such as areas of concern, players involved or goals. The leadership challenge is a leader who

 

Sample Solution

o him. This is further supported by Aristotle’s Politics ((1996), Page 28): ‘a king is the natural superior of his subjects.’ However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63).
Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7).
Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised.

Jus in bello

The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323).
First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is

This question has been answered.

Get Answer