o identify a leader on Twitter with at least 10K followers. Focus on selecting a leader of an organization, charity, governmental agency, etc. Do not choose a celebrity. Based on your review of his/her digital content (tweets/re-tweets), identify his/her three competencies that you believe helped this person become a leader on Twitter. These should be based upon the competencies presented by Ruben (2006) and discussed in week 5.
In preparation for this assignment review, the PowerPoint slides from week five and read Ingerson, K. & Bruce, J. (2013). Leadership in the Twitterverse. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 74-83Preview the document.
Assignment Instructions: For each of the competencies that you select connect the tweets to two different sub-dimensions of that competency. For example, if you select Personal Competency then, for example, you should connect one tweet to the sub-dimension Character, Personal Values, & Ethics and one tweet for example to the sub-dimension Self-Discipline & Self-Confidence. You must define and describe each of the three competencies and six sub-dimensions that you are writing about in your own words. Be sure to justify your reasoning.
Organization of the Paper:
- Begin with a brief introductory paragraph introducing the leader you picked for this assignment and the three competencies you will be discussing throughout the paper (5-6 sentences). Remember that there are five competencies identified by Ruben, each with a 7 dimensions of the competency.
- Name and define (in your own words) the first competency briefly and explain your reasoning for selecting this competency for your leader. Make sure to include the original digital content of your leader to justify the competency you have chosen (e.g., 2 original tweets/retweets from Twitter). Connect each tweet to two different sub-dimensions of that competency.
- Name and define (in your own words) the second competency briefly and explain your reasoning for selecting this competency for your leader. Make sure to include the original digital content of your leader to justify the competency you have chosen (e.g., 2 original tweets/retweets from Twitter). Connect each tweet to two different sub-dimensions of that competency.
Sample Solution
sentences don’t communicate a similar recommendation. In believing that what is acceptable is lovely, Moore thought one isn’t just reasoning that what is wonderful is charming. As per Moore, there is an “open inquiry” about whether what is acceptable is lovely, and it tends to be comprehended when somebody questions the produced proclamation. In any case, there is no “open inquiry” with respect to whether what is lovely is charming, in light of the fact that this scientific truth can’t be questioned. In this way, Moore imagined that no substitution will breeze through the assessment. Hence, there is no common property of “goodness”. As such, as per Moore and his open inquiry contention, “goodness” is a non-characteristic property. Issues with the open inquiry contention incorporate the way that Moore accept that an investigation basically can’t be educational. It is likewise conceivable that “great” and some common property Y have a similar reference yet various faculties. On the off chance that that were the situation, “acceptable” might allude to something very similar that “joy” does yet at the same time mean an alternate thing. In particular be that as it may, as per W. Frankena, Moore “makes one wonder”, as his premises expect reality of the end, as opposed to supporting it. At long last, Moore would run into a similar snare as every other person as he tried to demonstrate that “decency” is a non-normal property, yet the open inquiry contention can apply as a lot to that definition as it can to any naturalistic definition.>
sentences don’t communicate a similar recommendation. In believing that what is acceptable is lovely, Moore thought one isn’t just reasoning that what is wonderful is charming. As per Moore, there is an “open inquiry” about whether what is acceptable is lovely, and it tends to be comprehended when somebody questions the produced proclamation. In any case, there is no “open inquiry” with respect to whether what is lovely is charming, in light of the fact that this scientific truth can’t be questioned. In this way, Moore imagined that no substitution will breeze through the assessment. Hence, there is no common property of “goodness”. As such, as per Moore and his open inquiry contention, “goodness” is a non-characteristic property. Issues with the open inquiry contention incorporate the way that Moore accept that an investigation basically can’t be educational. It is likewise conceivable that “great” and some common property Y have a similar reference yet various faculties. On the off chance that that were the situation, “acceptable” might allude to something very similar that “joy” does yet at the same time mean an alternate thing. In particular be that as it may, as per W. Frankena, Moore “makes one wonder”, as his premises expect reality of the end, as opposed to supporting it. At long last, Moore would run into a similar snare as every other person as he tried to demonstrate that “decency” is a non-normal property, yet the open inquiry contention can apply as a lot to that definition as it can to any naturalistic definition.>
