Describe two events you have experienced where:
A. Leaders or managers used their power appropriately and what they did to demonstrate they understood and valued the ethical use of power and where
B. Leaders or managers used their power inappropriately and what they did to demonstrate their inability to understand and value the ethical use of power.
C. Finally, describe what you learned about how leaders influence organizations through their use of power as a result of both experience
Question 2. HBR Discussion Forum, Ethics of Power, Influence, and Persuasion, Points to Honor. Harvard Business School Press.
Honesty is selected more than any other leadership characteristic in every survey Kouzes and Posner have conducted. Power, Influence and Persuasion are all necessary elements of leadership. Summarize how leaders can make legitimate use of power, influence and persuasion to make important contributions to their business. What are the ethical issues associated with their use.
Question 3. In the HBR Coursepack article, Leadership that Gets Results, Goleman argues that leaders who have mastered 4 our more of the 6 leadership styles, especially the authoritative, democratic, affiliative, and coaching leadership styles, have the potential of creating the best organizational climate and generating strong performance levels.
Provide an example of a leader or manager you worked under who demonstrated each of these four styles and what they did specifically to demonstrate those styles.
Finally, describe how you personally and professionally benefited from those leaders and managers who demonstrated these 4 styles that Goleman highlights?
Question 4. Write essay 450-550 words. What a Difference a World Makes: Understanding Threats to Performance in a VUCA World by Nathan Bennett; G. James Lemoine.
Sample Solution
Lenaerts who would allude to the fact that the definition of a Union concept of abuse of rights by the Commission in Emsland- Stärke and its progressive application to both direct (Halifax) and indirect (Cadbury Schweppes) taxation mean it can be considered an implicit recognition of a general principle only. For many like Lyd , there is simply no difference in how the Court applies its test in areas of indirect and direct taxation. The language used by the Court is often used to support this argument. Indeed, in the Kofoed case, the Court specifically referred to the prohibition of abuse of rights as one general principle of Union law. The aforementioned interchangeable use of words such as avoidance, fraud and evasion has been replaced by simply âabuseâ since Emsland-Stärke. Nonetheless, I recommend looking beyond the language debate and instead examining the substance of the matter. As described in part two, there has been a progressive application of abuse of rights to various areas of Union law. However, it is clearer still that the concept of abuse as it has developed in Kofoed and Part Service is substantially different from the one which was developed in Cadbury Schweppes. Accordingly, both claim to be the EU concept of abuse. Since both cases, the small chasm which appeared in Halifax has widened even further. The difference is that under the CS criteria, any reason other than a tax advantage is enough to keep the abuse concept at bay, whilst in Part Service, if the tax reasons are of more importance than the non-tax reasons, abuse may be established.>
Lenaerts who would allude to the fact that the definition of a Union concept of abuse of rights by the Commission in Emsland- Stärke and its progressive application to both direct (Halifax) and indirect (Cadbury Schweppes) taxation mean it can be considered an implicit recognition of a general principle only. For many like Lyd , there is simply no difference in how the Court applies its test in areas of indirect and direct taxation. The language used by the Court is often used to support this argument. Indeed, in the Kofoed case, the Court specifically referred to the prohibition of abuse of rights as one general principle of Union law. The aforementioned interchangeable use of words such as avoidance, fraud and evasion has been replaced by simply âabuseâ since Emsland-Stärke. Nonetheless, I recommend looking beyond the language debate and instead examining the substance of the matter. As described in part two, there has been a progressive application of abuse of rights to various areas of Union law. However, it is clearer still that the concept of abuse as it has developed in Kofoed and Part Service is substantially different from the one which was developed in Cadbury Schweppes. Accordingly, both claim to be the EU concept of abuse. Since both cases, the small chasm which appeared in Halifax has widened even further. The difference is that under the CS criteria, any reason other than a tax advantage is enough to keep the abuse concept at bay, whilst in Part Service, if the tax reasons are of more importance than the non-tax reasons, abuse may be established.>
