You are a leadership consultant, and have been hired by an organization to help increase trust in the workplace. In order to do this you need to coach the leadership on how to illicit trust from their followers. In 500-750 words, address the following question:
The antecedents of trust (ability, benevolence, and integrity) proposed in the assigned article, “An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust: Past, Present, and Future,” are defined rather simply. Using additional research on trust and leader behavior, identify how you could coach a person to engage in behaviors that might elicit higher levels of those antecedents in followers. Make sure to include what needs to be coached and how you would go about it, as the focal point of this section.
Describe how the strategies might change depending on what setting the leader might be in (a for profit business staffed by employees versus a non-profit staffed primarily by volunteers for instance). Reminder this is about the leader and how you, as the consultant, would coach a leader differently in a different setting.
Thirdly, Vittola argues that war should be avoided (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we should proceed circumstances diplomatically. This is supported by the “last resort” stance in Frowe, where war should not be permitted unless all measures to seek diplomacy fails (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This means war shouldn’t be declared until one party has no choice but to declare war, in order to protect its territory and rights, the aim of war. However, we can also argue that the war can never be the last resort, given there is always a way to try to avoid it, like sanctions or appeasement, showing Vittola’s theory is flawed. Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaration of war, where he implies any commonwealth can go to war, but more importantly, “the prince” where he has “the natural order” according to Augustine, and all authority is given to 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).>GET ANSWER