Similarities and difference between "inborn talents" from the "new picture" is given below.
Explanation:
“In the past, leadership scholars considered charisma, intelligence and other personality traits to be the key to effective leadership. Accordingly, these academics thought that good leaders use their inborn talents to dominate followers and tell them what to do, with the goal either of injecting them with enthusiasm and willpower that they would otherwise lack or of enforcing compliance.
“In recent years, however, a new picture of leadership has emerged, one that better accounts for leadership performance. In this alternative view, effective leaders must work to understand the values and opinions of their followers—rather than assuming absolute authority—to enable a productive dialogue with followers about what the group embodies and stands for and thus how it should act. By leadership, we mean the ability to shape what followers actually want to do, not the act of enforcing compliance using rewards and punishments.
Leadership effectiveness is the product of individual ability to be the architect of culture, to understand the values and attitudes of followers (who may be colleagues as well as direct reports), and to inspire the contributions, cooperation and mutual support of the people around the would-be leader.
According to this new approach, no fixed set of personality traits can assure good leadership because the most desirable traits depend on the nature of the group being led and the context at hand.
Answer:
a rejected alternative
Explanation:
In the context, two friends were discussing which place or restaurant to go and eat some thing. One of them suggested to go to "Sharky". He even added the advantage of watching the game on the television which is in the restaurant "Sharky".
But the other friend rejected the restaurant "Sharky" as it was too noisy and chooses another alternative and wishes to go to "Pie Hub" and get a pizza from there.
Thus "Sharky's is too noisy" is a rejected alternative.
Answer:
B because they need to back up their reasoning and arguments
Answer:
The counterclaim given is as follows: Albel Bob Dylan's lyrics are just as effective without musical accompaniment.
The best repudiation for the counterclaim is A) which states that it is impossible to separate song lyrics from the music that accompanies them.
Explanation:
The counterclaim tries to throw weight behind the lyrics to Dylan's songs. There is no problem with this as his songs are incomplete without the lyrics.
However, to say they (the lyrics that is,) are just as effective without musical accompaniment is to assert that anybody can pick up those lyrics and express how they want (like a poem for instance) and still achieve the same effects they had with the musical accompaniment. This, of course, is impracticable as it in a way diminishes the musical aspect of Dylan's work.
Some of the awards that Albel Bob Dylan has received include the Presidential Medal of Freedom, ten Grammy Awards, a Golden Globe Award and an Academy Award. As far as history has it, no award has been given to him for the best poem or work of literature.
Awards are recognition of one's efforts. It's away of saying one's efforts meets a certain degree of perfection/standard. The more recognised an award is globally, the more authoritative it is considered to be.
Therefore, to agree with the statement from the counterclaim is to invariably assert that the bodies responsible for recognising superior musical prowess globally (such as the Grammy, Golden Globe and the Academy awards) might have issued the awards to him in error. Even if one of the bodies did issue him an award in error, it is impossible on, on the balance of probabilities, for same error to be repeated across various organisations several times, over the same constant - Bob Dylan's music.
Cheers!
A. <em>using good judgment</em>
C. <em>being cautious</em>
E. <em>ensuring appropriateness</em>
