Leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk - Term Paper Example A real leader is capable of doing different tasks guided by his vision and reason coming from the historical experience. To make it plain, â€Å"leadership is the result of a complex set of interactions among the leader, the followers and the situation† (Cited in Byrne 20). Thus, a leader follows the most optimal way to succeed paying much tribute to his environment and the focal goals in mind. There are no leadership perspectives without goal-setting and planning elaborated by a leader. On the other hand, it is vital to touch upon the types of leadership and the notion of an effective military leadership. The question is that the efficiency in the way a military leader follows comprises a global perspective along with the national ideals. There should be a detailed understanding of what the nation longs for and why such a problem stays unsolved. Byrne identifies effective military leadership as â€Å"the ability to inspire others to willingly participate in the achievement o f a shared vision set out by the leader and to assist them throughout that transformational journey† (25). Hence, these solitary traits seem to be apparent in Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. First of all, he was a leader able to make a significant change against the Muslim perspective. By establishing the National Assembly in Turkey, he gained support of the Turkish majority in turning Turkey into a secular nation-state (Polelle 44). It was one of the first steps toward modernization throughout Turkey. Second, Ataturk broke the ice of the misconception in a larger Turkish society. He was successful in his leadership skills due to the fact that he possessed all types of transformational leadership evident in his â€Å"vision, courage, rhetorical skills, determination and integrity† (Byrne 25). This is why every single step he did toward progress in providing reforms was more than just a breakthrough. It gave grounds for further modernization and constructive development of Turkey . Secularization and improvement in education were the two main goals of Ataturk’s mission. The thing is that the reforms were aimed at the following prospects, namely: secular governance, the replacement of Arabic script with Roman characters, monogamy, creating an industrial infrastructure, opening three western-mode state universities, establishment of a civil code in accordance with the European norms and standards (Reisman 7). These reforms were hard to implement without keeping a strict eye on their execution. Today, there is hardly a national leader to complete all these reforms within a short span of time. To say more, Ataturk believed that a republican idealism would become a new civic religion for Turks (Hanioglu 182). His intellectual capacity made him believe in that Turkey may reach the new heights in its overall development once the religious views on governance came in place. The moral side of the question was at stake. Mustafa Kemal was aware of that and could wait for some time to make Turks share the idea of republican idealism versus solely religious construct. Here, his rhetoric and courage complement his vision at the outset and ability to integrate toward new dimensions of national development of Turks. This is why he managed to create a new nation of Turkey based on the most progressive principles of civilian life. The authority of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is too significant for every Turk, as he dared to transform â€Å"

Needs Analysis: The Who, What, When and Where of Training Essay

Needs Analysis: The Who, What, When and Where of Training In a nutshell, (needs) analysis is the planning we do in order to figure out what to do. Allison Rossett, 1999 Needs analysis is the systematic basis for decisions about how to influence performance (Stout, 1995). This is where it all begins -- establishing relationships, exploring strategies, and defining solutions. The key is to seek the gap between the current situation and the desired situation and then to focus resources where they're most needed. The analysis must determine root causes. For example, a question about why something doesn't or won't work is just as critical as what people do and do not know. Needs assessment then is a study conducted to determine the exact nature of an organizational problem and how it can be resolved. That needs assessment becomes the basis for wise recommendations about instruction and supporting organizational strategies, and for enlisting support throughout the organization. Managers are often in too much of a hurry. They implement a solution which is sometimes, but not always, the correct intervention. This can prove to be an expensive error. The largest expense for human resources programs, by far, is attributable to the time spent by the participants in training programs, career development, and organization development activities. In training, costs due to lost production and travel time can be as much as 90-95% of the total program costs (Gilbert, 1988). There are two ways to learn of training needs. The first method takes the proactive approach. An instructional designer goes into the system and searches for problems or potential problems. The goal is to make the system more efficient and ... ...nowledge Management Meets Analysis. Training and Development, 53, pp. 62-68. Rossett, Allison (1997). That was a great class, but†¦ Training and Development, 51(7), pp. 18-24. Rossett, Allison (1995). Needs assessment. In G.J. Anglin (ed.), Instructional Technology: Past, Present, Future (2nd edition) (pp. 183-196). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Rossett, Allison (1991). When performance and instructional technologists talk: Dialog about impact, change and personal growth. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 7(2), pp. 71-80. Rossett, Allison (1989). Assess for success. Training and Development, 43(5), pp. 55-59. Steadman, S.V. (1980). Learning to Select a Needs Assessment Strategy. Training and Development, 30, pp. 56-61. Stout, D. (1995). Performance Analysis for Training, Niagra Paper Company, Niagra, WI

Thrasymachus’ Views on Justice

The position Thrasymachus takes on the definition of justice, as well as its importance in society, is one far differing from the opinions of the other interlocutors in the first book of Plato’s Republic. Embracing his role as a Sophist in Athenian society, Thrasymachus sets out to aggressively dispute Socrates’ opinion that justice is a beneficial and valuable aspect of life and the ideal society. Throughout the course of the dialogue, Thrasymachus formulates three major assertions regarding justice. These claims include his opinion that â€Å"justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,† â€Å"it is just to obey the rulers,† and â€Å"justice is really the good of another [†¦] and harmful to the one who obeys and serves. † Socrates continuously challenges these claims using what is now known as the â€Å"Socratic method† of questioning, while Thrasymachus works to defend his views. This paper seeks to argue the implausibility of Thrasymachus’ views through an analysis of his main claims regarding justice, as well as his view that injustice brings greater happiness. In Book I of Republic, Socrates attempts to define justice with the help of his friends and acquaintances. After a number of suggestions prove false or insufficient, Thrasymachus tries his hand to define the term, convinced that his definition rings true. Thrasymachus begins in stating, â€Å"justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,1† and after prodding, explains what he means by this. Thrasymachus believes that the stronger rule society, therefore, creating laws and defining to the many what should be considered just. He pertains, however, that the stronger create said laws for their own benefit and therefore in acting justly, the ruled are performing for the rulers benefit and not their own. This argument is not feasible for a variety of reasons. One of the key characteristics of justice is fairness, which can also be defined as being reasonable or impartial. 5 Impartiality means that you do not favour one side over another6, and therefore implies that if one were to act justly and therefore impartially, they would not act in a way to benefit only a select few. Furthermore, justice in its true form cannot be used solely for the advantage of the stronger without the masses acknowledging the injustices being imposed upon them, as Thrasymachus suggests is the case. For justice is one of the many characteristics of morality, which is considered to be intrinsic based on an inner conviction. 7 Therefore, if the many were acting against said inner conviction wholly for the benefit of the stronger, would they not experience a natural feeling of injustice? This argument alike can be used to refute another of Thrasymachus’ primary claims that â€Å"justice is really the good of another [†¦] and harmful to the one who obeys and serves. †3 In addition to his definition, Thrasymachus argues the value of justice as a human or societal characteristic, claiming that injustice is far more beneficial to the individual. Thrasymachus asserts that tyranny: makes the doer of injustice happiest and the sufferers of it, who are unwilling to do injustice, most wretched. †¦] injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice. 5 To decide whether an unjust man finds more happiness than a just man does, one must understand the true meaning of the word. The dictionary defines happiness as â€Å"characterized by pleasure, contentment, or joy. †8 Thrasymachus typifies the unjust man as someone who is constantly seeking self-fulfillment, pleasing their desires no matter what the cost to others. It is in their nature to never be satisfied with what they have, and therefore it is unlikely that the unjust man could ever experience true contentment. In contrast, the just man is content upholding laws and acting for the greater good and is therefore capable of experiencing a greater happiness than one who partakes in injustices. The dictionary goes on to state that happiness can also be defined as â€Å"feeling satisfied that something is right or has been done right. 8 Thus, an unjust man could never truly be happy, as they are aware of the injustices they have committed unto others in order to benefit themselves. In addition, if one is to look to the cardinal virtues, not only is justice itself included, temperance is as well. Temperance, meaning â€Å"restraint in the face of temptation or desire†9 is not a characteristic of an unjust man. In fact, Thrasymachus argues that one should always seek to fulfill their own desires exercising injustice as a way to do so. Virtue is said to be a measure of one’s worth, therefore, in turning their back on it, an unjust man could never be as self fulfilled and happy as a virtuous one. The first book of Republic illustrates a diverse range of views in reference to the definition of justice. None, however, evokes such controversy and analysis as Thrasymachus’ dialogue. His point of view calls to the forefront a number of important questions regarding the issue, and is an essential piece to Plato’s puzzle of defining justice. Thrasymachus’s arguments in and of themselves, however, are implausible as discussed above. Not only does his claim that â€Å"justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,†1 go against morality and assume the masses naive, but his attempt to prove that the unjust man is happier than the just man is insufficient and untrue. Works Cited Encarta World English Dictionary. 2004 Plato. The Republic. Translated by G. M. A. Grube. Revised by C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company. 1992. 382c

Main Messages Of Thomas Morers Utopia - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1452 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2019/05/23 Category Art Essay Level High school Topics: Renaissance Essay Did you like this example? Thomas Morers, Utopia, examines the fundamental ways in which a society works and maintains itself. Utopia exposes the insanity and evils of Morers society by painting an alternative, the ideal society. There was a time and place in England where the wealthy were extravagant and the poor were worse than poor. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Main Messages Of Thomas Morers Utopia" essay for you Create order The rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer. Under the ruling of King Henry VII, there was an enormous gap between the wealthy and the poor. Majority of the people where homeless and poverty stricken. Then came the ideal society which uses rational thought alone in political, religious practices, and in society. The Utopian political structure was revolutionary compared to any of Europes. Decisions were made to benefit everyone in the Utopian society. There was no such thing as financial superiority since Utopia, had no form of money. Values were placed on human life rather than possessions. Through Utopia, More illustrates a fantasy, an alternative way of living for the people. Utopian society, portrays a nation based on rational thought. Utopians believe that human life is of a higher value than that of material possessions. For example, in the conversation with the lawyer and Hythloday, the lawyer praises English laws for hanging of thieves. Hythloday answers, It seems to me a very unjust thing to take away a manrs life for a little money, for nothing in the world can be of equal value with a manrs life (More, ebook). Hythloday states that the capital punishment in which England is enforcing is too harsh and theft should not be the cause of the death penalty, and death will not stop a person from stealing in order to provide food for their family. In regards, they should find other options to punish these people because it will only eliminate crime not the criminals. Hythloday offers other options like making sure everyone has enough to eat which goes in hand with the Utopian policies in which everyone has and shares everything, not one citizen in Utopia has more or less than someone else everything is shared equally. Because of this no citizen of Utopia will suffer or ever be short of utilities, food etc. Utopians believe in equality and it is one of the many things that sets it apart from England. In addition, Utopian society has eliminated wealth, Utopians do not believe in financial superiority therefore, there is no form of money. Since wealth does not exist neither does private property, Utopians have established communal property instead. Hythloday states, as long as there is any property, and while money is the standard of all other things, I cannot think that a nation can be governed either justly or happily (More, ebook). Hythloday states that since there is no private property wealth does no exist which is one of the main reasons why the civilians of Utopia have happiness. Where there is private property happiness among the people will not exist and more problems will arise among the society. But since Utopia is an establishment of communal property, the civilians do not care about being rich. Therefore, greed does not exist and people will not have to worry about financial issues, which will lead to no greed or corruption in the society and everyone will be happy. As stated before, Utopia is not like any other civilization they do not believe in social classes and hierarchies. Every citizen of Utopia is equal and works the same amount of hours and lives in identical houses so no one feels higher than others. As Hythloday described it, yet they do not wear themselves out as if they were beasts of burdenbut they, dividing the day and night into twenty-four hours, appoint six of these for work, three of which are before dinner and three after go to bed and sleep eight hours (More, Ebook). Unlike England, Utopia follows this schedule rigorously. Utopians do not believe that human beings should exhaust themselves over laborious work so everyone splits up their work to help one another not only to benefit their society, but to help their neighbors and people from their community because that will help their community prosper. Unlike England, where the poor tend to work many hours of harsh work and still not make enough or any money at all, while the rich and wealthy barely work and still have tons of money left over. That is exactly what the Utopians do not want to happen in their society which is why they do not believe in social classes and hierarchies. In the Utopian civilization everyone helps one another and contributes to their community which in all helps it grow, and leaves no room for beggers or for people to be homeless. However, the same cannot be said towards England. In addition, Utopia is tolerant of many religions however they are all similar in that they all believe in one God. All the religions practice tolerance of one another which keeps the peace in Utopia. Religions are able to try to convert others into their own faith only by means that they do it quietly and politely. If the person denies conversion that religion is not allowed to attack other religions or cause violence of any sort. One believe that Utopians do not accept is atheism because it is seen as immoral. Utopians believe that if one was atheist that person would act selfishly and would seek physical and mental pleasures which could disrupt the peace. One similarity exists between Utopian religion, Calvinism, and Lutheranism and that is faith. For example Utopians believe, the soul of man is immortal, and that Godtherefore, appointed rewards for good and virtuous actions, and punishments for vice, to be distributed after this life (More, Ebook). Utopians have faith in the afterlife in which God will punish the bad and reward the good. No matter what religion they all have faith in one god. Calvinism and Lutheranism both believe in justification by faith only. However, all Utopian, Calvinism and Lutheranism differ, but are similar in that they do not accept atheism. For example, in the article John Calvin: On Predestination Calvin states, Whence we infer, that they who know not themselves to be Gods peculiar people will be tortured with continual anxiety (Calvin, 1). Calvin states those who do not believe in the word of god, salvation, or in an afterlife will live in torture. In addition, the article The Tower Experience, 1519 Lu ther states, The justice of God is revealed in it, as it is written: The just person lives by faith.' the justice of God is that by which the just person lives by a gift of God, that is by faith (Luther, 1). Luther states, that God will forgive us if one has faith. Once again stating the justification of faith that all three; Utopians, Calvinism, and Lutheranism have in common. There are some people in England who would not approve of a society like Utopia. Due to the fact that Utopia abolished some of the things that England people take pride in. For example, Utopia eliminated money from their society and private property. Clearly, in Europe the rich are very prideful when it comes to money and their private property so a society like Utopia would not suit them or benefit them in any way. Another important aspect about Utopia is that they centralize the common good of all in their community, not just the private. Utopians like to see everyone in their community prosper, not just one group of individuals like England. In that matter, people like the King, the Pope, and the wealthy would not agree or accept Morers model state. This group of people belong to the upper class, have tons of money, and power in their society. A society with the rules and values of Utopia would not suit them due to the fact that Utopia believes in equality. In England, the rich get richer and the poor seem to get poorer. People like the King and wealthy seem to benefit from the poor, so they would not want to see or be in a place where their just as equal as someone who is poor. Not to include the fact that if the wealthy including the King, were to live in a society like Utopia their power and riches would be nonexistent because one Utopia abolished money, social classes, and hierarchies;three things that people in England take pride in. In conclusion, a society like Utopia would not benefit them, theyll end up losing everything they prioritize. Since they wont be able to get richer nor have people to make them richer e verything and everyone would be equal.