Hire our professional essay experts at Gradehunters.net who are available online 24/7 for an essay paper written to a high standard at an affordable cost.
Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
How have leaders wielded power in different ways? Provide at least two examples and cite sources appropriately; note whether or not each example promoted leadership effectiveness and how. Use the module resources to guide your response.
This is a two page paper.
Headings should be created to reflect the critical elements identified in the rubric:
Leaders and Power
Analysis of Leader Effectiveness
Follow the rubric requirements (attached).
Sources must be cited with APA format.
Plagiarism is unacceptable. Must be less than 20% copied from source.
PSY 614 Module Nine Reaction Paper Rubric Prompt: How have leaders wielded power in different ways? Provide at least two examples and cite sources appropriately; note whether or not each example promoted leadership effectiveness and how. Make sure to use the Module Nine resources to guide your answers. Craft a one- to two-page response to this prompt. Format: Double-spaced Word document, 12-point Times New Roman font, 1-inch margins, APA format. Page length requirements: one to two pages, not including title page and references. Instructor Feedback: Students can find their feedback in the Grade Center. Critical Elements Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement Not Evident Value Leaders and Power Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research (27-30) Identifies how leaders have wielded power using specific and relevant examples (24-26) Does not sufficiently identify how leaders have wielded power using relevant examples (21-23) Does not identify how leaders have wielded power (0-20) 30 Analysis of Leader Effectiveness Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research (27-30) Makes and justifies claims about the effectiveness of leadership related to power using relevant examples (24-26) Does not sufficiently make and justify claims about the effectiveness of leadership related to power using specific and relevant examples (21-23) Does not include claims on leadership effectiveness (0-20) 30 Organization Applies highly effective pattern of organization around a logical flow (introduction, body, and conclusion) to effectively communicate the main idea of the paper (18-20) Applies clear pattern of organization around a logical flow (introduction, body, and conclusion) to effectively communicate the main idea of the paper (16-17) Does not sufficiently apply clear pattern of organization around a logical flow (introduction, body, and conclusion) to effectively communicate the main idea of the paper (14-15) Organization of ideas is not evident (0-13) 20 Articulation of Response Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, and syntax and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format (18-20) Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, or syntax (16-17) Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, or syntax that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas (14-15) Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, or syntax that prevent understanding of ideas (0-13) 20 Earned Total Comments: 100%
Science and Technology: Absolutely; The psychology of power Anonymous . The Economist ; London 394.8666 (Jan 23, 2010yf . ProQuest document link ABSTRACT Reports of politicians who have extramarital affairs while complaining about the death of family values, or who use public funding for private gain despite condemning government waste, have become so common in recent years that they hardly seem surprising anymore. Anecdotally, at least, the connection between power and hypocrisy looks obvious. Anecdote is not science, though. And, more subtly, even if anecdote is correct, it does not answer the question of whether power tends to corrupt, as Lord Acton’s dictum has it, or whether it merely attracts the corruptible. To investigate this question Joris Lammers at Tilburg University, in the Netherlands, and Adam Galinsky at Northwestern University, in Illinois, have conducted a series of experiments which attempted to elicit states of powerfulness and powerlessness in the minds of volunteers. Having done so, as they report in Psychological Science, they tested those volunteers’ moral pliability. Lord Acton, they found, was right. FULL TEXT Power corrupts, but it corrupts only those who think they deserve it REPORTS of politicians who have extramarital affairs while complaining about the death of family values, or who use public funding for private gain despite condemning government waste, have become so common in recent years that they hardly seem surprising anymore. Anecdotally, at least, the connection between power and hypocrisy looks obvious. Anecdote is not science, though. And, more subtly, even if anecdote is correct, it does not answer the question of whether power tends to corrupt, as Lord Acton’s dictum has it, or whether it merely attracts the corruptible. To investigate this question Joris Lammers at Tilburg University, in the Netherlands, and Adam Galinsky at Northwestern University, in Illinois, have conducted a series of experiments which attempted to elicit states of powerfulness and powerlessness in the minds of volunteers. Having done so, as they report in Psychological Science, they tested those volunteers’ moral pliability. Lord Acton, they found, was right. In their first study, Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky asked 61 university students to write about a moment in their past when they were in a position of high or low power. Previous research has established that this is an effective way to “prime” people into feeling as if they are currently in such a position. Each group (high power and low poweryf was then split into two further groups. Half were asked to rate, on a nine-point morality scale (with one being highly immoral and nine being highly moralyf K R Z R E M H F W L R Q D E O H L W Z R X O G E H I R U R W K H U S H R S O H W R R Y H U U H S R U W W U D Y H O H [ S H Q V H s at work. The other half were asked to participate in a game of dice. The dice players were told to roll two ten-sided dice (one for “tens” and one for “units”yf L Q W K H S U L Y D F R I D Q L V R O D W H d cubicle, and report the results to a lab assistant. The number they rolled, which would be a value between one and 100 (two zerosyf Z R X O G G H W H U P L Q H W K H Q X P E H U R I W L F N H W V W K D W W K H Z R X O G E H J L Y H Q L Q D V P D O O O R W W H U W K D W Z D V U X Q D t the end of the study. In the case of the travel expenses–when the question hung on the behaviour of others–participants in the high- power group reckoned, on average, that over-reporting rated as a 5.8 on the nine-point scale. Low-power participants rated it 7.2. The powerful, in other words, claimed to favour the moral course. In the dice game, PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 4 however, high-power participants reported, on average, that they had rolled 70 while low-power individuals reported an average 59. Though the low-power people were probably cheating a bit (the expected average score would be 50yf W K H K L J K S R Z H U Y R O X Q W H H U V Z H U H X Q G R X E W H G O F K H D W L Q J S H U K D S V W D N L Q J W K H W H U P K L J K U R O O H U U D W K H U W R R O L W H U D O O Taken together, these results do indeed suggest that power tends to corrupt and to promote a hypocritical tendency to hold other people to a higher standard than oneself. To test the point further, though, Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky explicitly contrasted attitudes to self and other people when the morally questionable activity was the same in each case. Having once again primed two groups of participants to be either high-power or low-power, they then asked some members of each group how acceptable it would be for someone else to break the speed limit when late for an appointment and how acceptable it would be for the participant himself to do so. Others were asked similar questions about tax declarations. Only the little people pay taxes… In both cases participants used the same one-to-nine scale employed in the first experiment. The results showed that the powerful do, indeed, behave hypocritically. They felt that others speeding because they were late warranted a 6.3 on the scale whereas speeding themselves warranted a 7.6. Low-power individuals, by contrast, saw everyone as equal. They scored themselves as 7.2 and others at 7.3–a statistically insignificant difference. In the case of tax dodging, the results were even more striking. High-power individuals felt that when others broke tax laws this rated as a 6.6 on the morality scale, but that if they did so themselves this rated as a 7.6. In this case low- power individuals were actually easier on others and harsher on themselves, with values of 7.7 and 6.8 respectively. These results, then, suggest that the powerful do indeed behave hypocritically, condemning the transgressions of others more than they condemn their own. Which comes as no great surprise, although it is always nice to have everyday observation confirmed by systematic analysis. But another everyday observation is that powerful people who have been caught out often show little sign of contrition. It is not just that they abuse the system; they also seem to feel entitled to abuse it. To investigate this point, Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky devised a third set of experiments. These were designed to disentangle the concept of power from that of entitlement. To do this, the researchers changed the way they primed people. A culture of entitlement Half of 105 participants were asked to write about a past experience in which they had legitimately been given a role of high or low power. The others were asked to write about an experience of high or low power where they did not feel their power (or lack of ityf Z D V O H J L W L P D W H $ O O R I W K H Y R O X Q W H H U V Z H U H W K H Q D V N H G W R U D W H K R Z L P P R U D O L t would be for someone to take an abandoned bicycle rather than report the bicycle to the police. They were also asked, if they were in real need of a bicycle, how likely they would be to take it themselves and not report it. The “powerful” who had been primed to believe they were entitled to their power readily engaged in acts of moral hypocrisy. They assigned a value of 5.1 to others engaging in the theft of the bicycle while rating the action at 6.9 if they were to do it themselves. Among participants in all of the low-power states, morally hypocritical behaviour inverted itself, as it had in the case of tax fraud. “Legitimate” low-power individuals assigned others a score of 5.1 if they stole a bicycle and gave themselves a 4.3. Those primed to feel that their lack of power was illegitimate behaved similarly, assigning values of 4.7 and 4.4 respectively. However, an intriguing characteristic emerged among participants in high-power states who felt they did not deserve their elevated positions. These people showed a similar tendency to that found in low-power individuals– to be harsh on themselves and less harsh on others–but the effect was considerably more dramatic. They felt that others warranted a lenient 6.0 on the morality scale when stealing a bike but assigned a highly immoral 3.9 if they took it themselves. Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky call this reversal “hypercrisy”. They argue, therefore, that people with power that they think is justified break rules not only because they can get away with it, but also because they feel at some intuitive level that they are entitled to take what they want. This sense of entitlement is crucial to understanding why people misbehave in high office. In its absence, abuses will be less likely. The word “privilege” translates as “private law”. If Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky are right, the sense which some powerful people seem to have that different rules apply to them is not just a convenient smoke screen. They genuinely believe it. PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 2 of 4 What explains hypercrisy is less obvious. It is known, though, from experiments on other species that if those at the bottom of a dominance hierarchy show signs of getting uppity, those at the top react both quickly and aggressively. Hypercrisy might thus be a signal of submissiveness–one that is exaggerated in creatures that feel themselves to be in the wrong place in the hierarchy. By applying reverse privileges to themselves, they hope to escape punishment from the real dominants. Perhaps the lesson, then, is that corruption and hypocrisy are the price that societies pay for being led by alpha males (and, in some cases, alpha femalesyf 7 K H D O W H U Q D W L Y H W K R X J h cleaner, is leadership by wimps. DETAILS Subject: Behavior; Psychology; Power Location: Netherlands Classification: 1200: Social policy; 9175: Western Europe Publication title: The Economist; London Volume: 394 Issue: 8666 Pages: 75-76 Publication year: 2010 Publication date: Jan 23, 2010 Section: Science and Technology Publisher: The Economist Intelligence Unit N.A., Incorporated Place of publication: London Country of publication: United States Publication subject: Business And Economics–Economic Systems And Theories, Economic History, Business And Economics–Economic Situation And Conditions ISSN: 00130613 CODEN: ECSTA3 Source type: Magazines Language of publication: English Document type: News Document feature: Illustrations PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 3 of 4 LINKS Request this item through ILL, Check Full Text Finder for Full Text Copyright Ó 2017 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest ProQuest document ID: 223981047 Document URL: http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/22398104 7?accountid=3783 Copyright: (Copyright 2010 The Economist Newspaper Ltd. All rights reserved.yf Last updated: 2015-02-07 Database: ProQuest Central PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 4 of 4
Everyone needs a little help with academic work from time to time. Hire the best essay writing professionals working for us today!
Get a 15% discount for your first order
Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper