Select a famous manager, research him, and then analyze his style using the theories in class.
1) Select one famous manager.
2) Then do extensive research on this manager.
3) Write a description of the history you discovered in your research being sure to document.
4) Describe trait leadership, functional leadership, and Path-Goal Situational Leadership.
5) Apply each of those theories to the manager.
6) Explain which theory most accurately described the manager you were analyzing based on the applied to the manager based on the information that you had.
7) Which theory was the most difficult to apply and why?
This paper should be a minimum of 5-6 pages. It may be longer. Cite from 5-7 academic sources. Do not quote directly from the text but put this material in your own words being sure to document. Use the APA (7the edition) format to document the websites. Please consult the writing guidelines for the course.
dreadful or not to continue these activities, as he continually tracked down a center ground, where it very well may be legal to do things like this however never consistently (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is upheld by Frowe, who estimates the authentic strategies as indicated by proportionality and military need. It relies upon the greatness of how much harm done to each other, to pass judgment on the activities after a conflict. For instance, one can’t just nuke the fear monger bunches all through the center east, since it isn’t just corresponding, it will harm the entire populace, an unseen side-effect. All the more critically, the warriors should have the right expectation in the thing they will accomplish, forfeiting the expenses for their activities. For instance: if fighters have any desire to execute all detainees of war, they should do it for the right goal and for a worthy motivation, relative to the damage done to them. This is upheld by Vittola: ‘not generally legal to execute all warriors… we should consider… size of the injury incurred by the foe.’ This is additionally upheld by Frowe approach, which is significantly more upright than Vittola’s view however infers similar plans: ‘can’t be rebuffed basically for battling.’ This implies one can’t just rebuff another on the grounds that they have been a soldier. They should be treated as empathetically as could really be expected. Nonetheless, the circumstance is raised on the off chance that killing them can prompt harmony and security, inside the interests, everything being equal. Generally speaking, jus in bello proposes in wars, mischief must be utilized against warriors, never against the guiltless. In any case, eventually, the point is to lay out harmony and security inside the region. As Vittola’s decision: ‘the quest for equity for which he battles and the guard of his country’ is the thing countries ought to be battling for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Accordingly, albeit the present world has created, we can see not entirely different from the innovator accounts on fighting and the traditionists, giving one more part of the hypothesis of the simply war. By and by, we can in any case reason that there can’t be one conclusive hypothesis of the simply war hypothesis on account of its normativity. Jus post bellum At long last, jus post bellum proposes that the moves we ought to initiate after a conflict (Frowe (2010), Page 208). Right off the bat, Vittola contends after a conflict, it is the obligation of the pioneer to judge how to manage the foe (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332).. Once more, proportionality is underlined. For instance, the Versailles settlement forced after WWI is tentatively excessively unforgiving, as it was not all Germany’s problem for the conflict. This is upheld by Frowe, who communicates two perspectives in jus post bellum: Moderation and Maximalism, which are very contrasting perspectives. Minimalists recommend a more merciful methodology while maximalist, supporting the above model, gives a crueler methodology, rebuffing the foe both financially and strategically (Frowe (2010), Page 208). At the last occasion, be that as it may, the point of war is to lay out harmony security, so whatever should be done can be ethically legitimate, on the off chance that it keeps the guidelines of jus promotion bellum. All in all, simply war hypothesis is entirely contestable and can contend in various ways. In any case, the foundation of a fair harmony is urgent, making all war type circumstance to have various approaches to drawing nearer (Frowe (2010), Page 227). By the by, the simply war hypothesis contains jus promotion bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum, and it tends to be either ethically disputable or reasonable relying upon the proportionality of the circum>