project team members and stakeholders

project team members and stakeholders Successful project management requires a clear and approved plan, as well as fluid communication between the project team members and stakeholders. Included in these groups are the project manager, functional managers, functional employees, senior staff, and of course the customer. Project managers are responsible for all elements of the project and they must continuously balance outcomes, schedules, and resources in order to accomplish the project?s objective within the time and budget guidelines. With this in mind and after conducting your own research on the matter, do the following in your initial post: Identify and discuss a successful project and an unsuccessful project with which you are familiar. (If not familiar, conduct research) Include what you would say distinguishes the two, both in terms of the process used to develop them and their outcomes? Some concepts to consider as you are researching this project involve the following keywords: Project efficiency Impact on customer Business success, and/or future planning. 2. The philosophers studied in this module set the foundations for political thought. As you read the text and lecture material consider their views on the proper role of the state. Discuss their views on the proper roles of the state and how they might compare to the US state (government) today. Do you think the philosophers would agree with the current structure of the American government? Why or why not? SEE ATTACH FILES 1-2 PARAGRAHP FOR EACH QUESTION Successful project management requires a clear and approved plan, as well as fluid communication between the project team members and stakeholders. Included in these groups are the project manager, functional managers, functional employees, senior staff, and of course the customer. Project managers are responsible for all elements of the project and they must continuously balance outcomes, schedules, and resources in order to accomplish the project?s objective within the time and budget guidelines. With this in mind and after conducting your own research on the matter, do the following in your initial post: Identify and discuss a successful project and an unsuccessful project with which you are familiar. (If not familiar, conduct research) Include what you would say distinguishes the two, both in terms of the process used to develop them and their outcomes? Some concepts to consider as you are researching this project involve the following keywords: Project efficiency Impact on customer Business success, and/or future planning. 2. The philosophers studied in this module set the foundations for political thought. As you read the text and lecture material consider their views on the proper role of the state. Discuss their views on the proper roles of the state and how they might compare to the US state (government) today. Do you think the philosophers would agree with the current structure of the American government? Why or why not? SEE ATTACH FILES 1-2 PARAGRAHP FOR EACH QUESTION Successful project management requires a clear and approved plan, as well as fluid communication between the project team members and stakeholders. Included in these groups are the project manager, functional managers, functional employees, senior staff, and of course the customer. Project managers are responsible for all elements of the project and they must continuously balance outcomes, schedules, and resources in order to accomplish the project?s objective within the time and budget guidelines. With this in mind and after conducting your own research on the matter, do the following in your initial post: Identify and discuss a successful project and an unsuccessful project with which you are familiar. (If not familiar, conduct research) Include what you would say distinguishes the two, both in terms of the process used to develop them and their outcomes? Some concepts to consider as you are researching this project involve the following keywords: Project efficiency Impact on customer Business success, and/or future planning. 2. The philosophers studied in this module set the foundations for political thought. As you read the text and lecture material consider their views on the proper role of the state. Discuss their views on the proper roles of the state and how they might compare to the US state (government) today. Do you think the philosophers would agree with the current structure of the American government? Why or why not? SEE ATTACH FILES 1-2 PARAGRAHP FOR EACH QUESTION Plato: Civic Virtue and the Just Society ? ? I.Introduction Plato?s (428?348?B.C.E.) principal concern in the?Republic?is to define the nature of a just society. Plato?s political thinking as with Aristotle?s (whom we discuss in the next chapter) addresses the problems of the chief political unit each knew, the city-state. Plato?s Athens, like all city-states, was a small political community of about 300,000 people. In Athens, there were three main groups: slaves, resident aliens, and citizens. Slaves, who represented about a third of the Athenian population, had no role in government. Resident aliens, like the slaves, were not permitted any role in the political life of Athens but were free men, not subject to social subordination as were slaves. Citizenship was granted to about 100,000 individuals whose parents had been citizens. Citizens, including native tradesmen, artisans, and farmers, as well as the wealthy landowners, could participate in public affairs. The extent of their participation depended on the nature of the regime in power at the time. In some Athenian regimes, citizens (and here we are speaking only of males) were eligible for many different public offices, ranging from participation in the courts, to representative bodies, and to executive councils, but, in other regimes, limitations were placed on the public offices a person could hold. Still, in general and regardless of the regime, all male citizens could take part in the Assembly, which operated as a town meeting for all citizens who came together to discuss and to debate matters of public concern. The Assembly, which met about ten times a year, was not a mechanism for direct democracy; rather, policy was devised and carried out by representative bodies who were responsible to the Assembly. The representative bodies were a cross section of the citizens, and to ensure as equal a chance for participation as possible members to the representative bodies were chosen by lot.1 In Athens, and especially during the leadership of Pericles (495?429?B.C.E.), the animating spirit was that citizens should be able to take part in public affairs. Indeed, as George Sabine said, ?This ideal of a common life in which all might actively share?presupposed an optimistic estimate of the natural political capacity of the average man.?2Moreover, general participation was designed to encourage individuals to think of themselves as part of the larger community whose interest each individual served. But this ideal was never fully realized in practice because persistent and severe conflict between citizens who represented different economic interests remained strong.3Those citizens with aristocratic backgrounds, who came from old families born to wealth, predicated their economic and social position upon their landholdings. Those citizens promoting democracy, mainly consisting of people who could profit from trade, sought to expand Athenian participation in trade by making Athens a major naval power. The aristocratic group maintained strong opposition to this approach, since it would require taxing their property to support a large naval force.4 Plato saw these realities and the turmoil associated with them as proof that democracy could not achieve a stable society. His solution was to emphasize the central place of rational intelligence and the wise ruler in predicating stability upon a moral conception of a just society. On this view, Plato did not think that all people were equally capable of holding public office, nor did he think that the experience of participation in public affairs would by itself teach people to work with each other to achieve the common good. In contrast, the basis for moral unity rested with knowledge of what constitutes the just form or model of society.5 What is the just form of society for Plato? At this point, it is worth providing an overview of Plato?s argument, as a way to prepare the reader for the general themes in this chapter. II.Plato?s ?Just Society? For Plato, justice is a condition in which the various parts of human personality (or what he also refers to as the?soul) are properly arranged and ordered. Individuals are characterized by a rational element, which is the seat of the search for truth. In addition, the soul is motivated by appetite to attain wealth or pursue sexual desire. The third part of the soul is the spirited part, which is concerned with displaying the courage necessary to act for the common welfare and win honor from others for doing so. Finding the proper arrangement among these parts of the soul is critical to achieving justice not only in the personalities of each citizen, but in the society at large. Here, for Plato, the rational part of the soul should rule the other two parts. If the other parts of the soul were to dominate reason, then the soul would be out of balance and the individual would neither deliberate nor act in the best interests of either him or herself or of society. Indeed, in this circumstance, the appetite and the spirited part might even be in conflict with each other, a situation that would ensure not only personal unhappiness, but also an inability to perform well the various tasks and functions that secure important basic needs for society. One caveat must be made before proceeding. In developing Plato?s views, it must be clear that Plato admired Socrates? dialectical approach to the search for truth and knowledge. What approach did Socrates use? For Socrates, truth-revealing inquiry begins, as we saw in the Introduction, from the standpoint of a reasoned discourse among individuals whose only objective is truth. The?Republic?is a dialogue between Socrates and his com-patriots.6?To avoid confusion, it should be clear that when Socrates is referred to in the?Republic, as well as in this chapter, it is really Plato who is talking and who speaks through Socrates. It must also be clear that Plato sees himself as emulating Socrates? dialectical method. The basic purpose of Plato?s approach, then, is to demonstrate that the main avenue to truth is testing propositions against other propositions to determine which ones have truth and which ones lack truth. This discourse leads to the development of rational concepts, or what otherwise are referred to as the?forms, or ideas of good order. These forms should be used as guides in developing the main roles and institutions of society as well as the various parts of the souls of individuals, so that each member of society is able to contribute to the common good. In contributing to the common good, which in Plato?s case means citizens acting to help maintain the form of a just society, citizens manifest civic virtue. III.Plato?s Republic: What Justice Is Not Cephalus and Polemarchus Plato began the?Republic?by demonstrating in his various dialogues how far his own society was from holding a valid understanding of the nature of justice. Indeed, as he discussed the views of justice current during his times, Plato always seemed to have in the back of his mind a more authentic version of justice than he believed his contemporaries held. To make his view more clear, he had to first demonstrate to his colleagues why their views were wrong. In doing so, he examined conventional views of justice that, during his times, were taken to be valid and demonstrated why, upon analysis, these views were deficient. To this end, he engaged the arguments of Cephalus and Polemarchus and, in doing so, like Socrates, he challenged those who held those conventional views to defend them against his, that is Plato?s, own arguments. Cephalus is a ?money maker? or a man engaged in business that by Plato?s own account does not seem to ?love money too much.? Socrates asked Cephalus to explain the ?greatest good? he has received from being wealthy.7?Cephalus responds that men of wealth like him seek a clear conscience; they do not want to cheat or deceive anyone, lest after death they may suffer terrible punishments. Socrates summarized Cephalus?s response to what the latter thinks by describing justice as following the principle that the just person is one who always seeks to tell the truth and one who tries to pay his debts. In other words, one must always keep one?s agreements with others. But Socrates responded by saying that this principle could not be upheld on all occasions. Socrates asked if one should return a weapon lent to one by a friend when the friend, after going mad, asked for it back. Clearly in this case, it is necessary to violate an agreement, and Cephalus agreed.8 Keeping one?s agreements with other individuals, although an important virtue, is not?the?virtue that should be made the basis of all social interactions in the society. More important, by implication, is that one should uphold one?s obligations and duties to the larger society. And when one focuses solely on obligations owed to other individuals, it might well be that one overlooks the obligations owed to the larger society. That is what the example of keeping an agreement with a madman shows. Although the madman, in asking for the return of the weapon, may pose no harm to the person who lent it to him, he does pose harm to the society. Thus, owing to the obligation we have to protect society from?murder and mayhem, we have no duty to return a weapon to a madman. In a similar fashion, wealthy businessmen such as Cephalus should ponder whether their keeping agreements with each other, in order to make possible greater wealth for themselves, causes harm to the larger society. Clearly, Plato thought it might. Next, as a definition of justice, Polemarchus suggested the idea that ?it is just to give each person what is owed to him.?9?Socrates, after a series of comments and rejoinders with Polemarchus, concluded that justice as Polemarchus described it involved treating ?friends well and enemies badly.?10?Socrates flatly rejected this principle for defining justice. For Socrates, justice is clearly a major virtue, and virtues cannot be used to do harm to others. To put this point differently, for Socrates, to use one?s skills and abilities to harm another is to use them in a manner that contradicts their purpose. If we are teachers of music we should use our skills to make people musical, not unmusical.11?To do otherwise would suggest a form of society in which people turned virtue into a license that permitted them to use their best abilities and skills to impair human flourishing. But in a just society, people should use their skills to enhance and to enrich the lives of others. Thrasymachus But why can it not be argued that helping friends and keeping agreements are important virtues for people to follow? Indeed, are these values not essential to any conception of civic virtue? Plato might certainly answer this question in the affirmative. But his point seems to be that civic virtue is not the same thing as justice, and it is wrong to define the latter in terms of the former. Perhaps, as we will see later, civic virtue contributes to a just society, but, in doing so, it contributes to a value of singular importance, one that signals the overall basic good to which all members of society should be oriented. Here, the value of the highest importance toward which all other values must contribute is justice. Thus, in criticizing certain approaches to civic virtue, Plato did not intend to deny its importance. This fact is best seen in his treatment of Thrasymachus whose view of justice, as we shall see, would completely deny any respect for civic virtue. Thrasymachus argued that what is just is what the strongest and the most powerful say is just. On this view, there is little room for civic virtue. For civic virtue presumes that people will make sacrifices for the larger good. Thrasymachus?s position manifests the arrogance of those who owing to their extraordinary power need never contemplate making sacrifices for the larger good. Rather, people who hold Thrasymachus?s view just define the larger good to suit their own interests, thus putting themselves in a position where they never have to manifest civic virtue. The following account of Socrates? discussion with Thrasymachus elaborates on this point. Thrasymachus said that each regime has a ruling group, and the ruling party makes laws in its own interest. Furthermore, the ruling party claims that whatever is in its own interest is also in the interest of the whole society. Socrates responded by saying that the ruling powers are fallible and at times they make mistakes and thus put into place policies that are not to their advantage.12?On this view, it is not always the case, then, that what is in the interest of the stronger is either in their own interest or in the interest of the society. With these arguments, Thrasymachus is now forced to qualify his view of justice, and he no longer can hold that justice is ?what the stronger believes to be to his advantage, whether it is in fact to his advantage or not.?13 Thrasymachus?s approach to recoup his position is to qualify what he meant by saying that justice is the interest of the stronger. In particular, Thrasymachus shows that the ruler is stronger because he is much like any other kind of expert?say doctors?in that, like them, owing to expertise, a ruler is not likely to make a mistake.14?The reason for this view is that, in each case, whether we are talking of a ruler or a doctor, each operates by the knowledge that makes one capable of performing with excellence. Given this view, the ruler is stronger because unlike ordinary citizens the rulers are less likely to make mistakes in ruling, including mistakes that would harm the ruler?s interest. This response prompts a discussion of the nature of a craft, such as medicine. Socrates said that a craft suggests an activity in which a person uses his skills to attain only the purposes of the craft.15?This means for Socrates that a doctor uses his skills not to advance his own interests, such as making money, but to advance the interests of his patients. In the same way, a ruler, by analogy to other crafts, should use his knowledge to advance the interests of the citizens.16 In arguing this view, Socrates suggested that rulers must put aside their own interests and make the interests of the community primary. This commitment is the essence of what constitutes a life of civic virtue. Indeed, for Plato, rulers, like doctors, must exercise their skills so that they are in keeping with a commitment to serve the needs of their community. And thus rulers must not seek ?anything other than what is best for the things it rules and cares for, and this is true both of public and private kinds of rule.?17?In consequence, a person concerned with the interests of the citizens does not enter politics to provide for his or her own advantage or to attain goods such as money and honor, but enters politics to help those who are weaker than him or herself.18?In fact, what draws many lesser people to politics is not what draws the good individual to politics. What attracts the good person to politics is fear of those who see politics as a way to promote their own interest at the cost of the society?s interest. Good people fear being ruled by ?someone worse than [themselves].? This fear ?makes decent people rule when they do.?19 No reasonable person wants to be ruled by someone whose main purpose in ruling is advancing only his or her own interests. But that is what Thrasymachus advocated. For Thrasymachus, those who commit acts of injustice are ?clever and good.? Indeed, for Thrasymachus, those who ?are completely unjust? can ?bring cities and whole communities under their power.?20?There is great profit in injustice, then. Socrates attacked this position, arguing that the desire to act unjustly is a defect in the character of people. And the contention that injustice is a defect is easy to prove. Any society that was designed to act for unjust purposes will never succeed because the society will become riddled through and through with hatred and quarreling, thus making it impossible for people to work together as a unified community.21?This point is very important because the major purpose of any society is to serve the basic needs of its citizens, and a society that is unable to act in a unified fashion cannot possibly achieve this objective. Only people committed to the larger good of the community, those who manifest civic virtue and a concomitant commitment to justice, should be rulers, because it is only these people who can create the conditions that make possible the just, well-ordered society that Plato hoped to achieve. Another important proof that injustice is an undesirable defect arises from the contention that no person would ever be personally happy were he or she to live life outside of a commitment to justice. Why is this? No person wants merely to live, said Socrates,?but to live well and living well means being able to perform well one?s functions in society. But one cannot perform one?s functions well if one?s soul has been deprived of the ?peculiar virtue? that allows one to execute one?s tasks at the level of excellence required for the good performance of a task. The virtue of the soul that enables one to perform well one?s function is justice, and thus it follows that ?a just soul and a just man will live well.? Moreover, this state is desirable for people because one who lives well leads a ?blessed and happy? life.22 IV.The Next Question: What Is Justice? Socrates has demonstrated not only what justice is not, but he has demonstrated, also, that it is far better or advantageous to lead a just life than to lead an unjust one. But Socrates suggested that in making these points he has raised another important question. In particular, he has yet to tell us exactly what justice is. And, since a just life is to be a happy life, if it is not possible to demonstrate the nature of justice and how justice as a virtue contributes to our well-being, it will not be possible to demonstrate the basis for a happy life.23 Socrates thus felt compelled to demonstrate to Glaucon the definition of justice, intending to show him not only that justice is a good, but that it is ?one of the greatest goods.?24?As one of the greatest goods, what kind of good is justice? Justice is a good that not only provides an important result for its holder, but it is important for its own sake as well. Goods that are good for their own sake do not include money, for instance, but they do include ?seeing, hearing, knowing, being healthy and all other goods that are fruitful by their own nature and not simply because of reputation.?25?A good that is good for its own sake, then, is one that is so essential to life that it would be impossible to imagine a worthwhile life in the absence of that good. Such is the case with knowing, seeing, and hearing as well as justice. It is for this reason that justice is the basis for a life ?blessed with happiness.?26 But whereas it is intuitively clear to all what knowing, seeing, hearing, and good health are, it is not intuitively clear what justice is. To make a careful representation of justice, it is necessary to turn to sound, rational argument as opposed to intuition. So what is a just society? What arguments defend the conception of justice Plato supports? In the next sections we will begin to address these questions. The Basic Dimensions of Society The early part of the?Republic, which is a discourse between Socrates and the various individuals we have mentioned, now turns more to a conversation dominated by Socrates. Socrates? intent in this conversation, which involves Glaucon, is to provide a basic lecture on the fundamentals of social organization, and, once he has done that, to build from these fundamentals to develop his conception of justice. The starting point, then, for describing justice is that, in any society, it is clear that people have basic physical needs and thus they desire those material goods that satisfy these needs. Moreover, people by themselves cannot provide for these needs. So societies are formed for this purpose. In particular, we are told that, to secure the basic requirements of the citizens for food, shelter, and clothing, society needs a class of working people?including farmers, builders, and weavers.27?There also must be a marketplace where citizens can purchase the various goods that the different groups produce. Money is invented to facilitate exchanges. In the market setting, there are many merchants and retailers or shopkeepers trading their goods for money. These are people ?whose bodies are the weakest and who aren?t fit to do any other kind of work.?28 In this setting, all the basic needs that people have are cared for, and people live a long, peaceful, and healthy life in a just society, which they bequeath to their children. But Glaucon suggests to Socrates that Socrates? city is not satisfactory because people will want luxuries as well as having their basic needs satisfied.29?Socrates thought that the city built on serving basic needs is the ?true and healthy city.? But he conceded the need to include in his discussion of a model for a just city what presumably some people want: namely, in addition to providing for basic needs a city must provide luxuries, as well. Socrates called this city the city with a ?fever.? Here, Socrates described a city in which some people will seek to have fine clothes and good food. In addition, some people seek to have comfortable and decorated furniture, as well as prostitutes for sexual pleasure. Also, there will be people to provide art, music, and dance, as well as goods such as jewelry.30?In order to enjoy these goods, people will have to have leisure time, and this dimension is secured by providing them with a class of servants, including tutors and cooks who take care of the day-to-day necessities of life.31?Finally, and most tragically, the quest for luxuries becomes the main motive for war as people, in the search for the ?endless acquisition of money? for the sake of luxuries, seek to take each other?s resources.32 In accepting that the pursuit of wealth and money is the essential motivation in society, Plato certainly accepted the notion of private ownership. Being able to have exclusive ownership to property provides one with an incentive to perform the necessary work that produces both basic goods and luxuries. Still, Plato did not intend to make a conception of society that emphasized the pursuit of wealth and luxury the basis for defining a just order. As we can see from his view of the origin of war, which emanates from the constant pursuit of wealth, Plato clearly feared making appetite the main motivating and dominant force in society. To avoid this circumstance, appetite?in this case the quest for luxuries and wealth embodied in private property ownership?must be limited by the constraints of reason. Here, property ownership need not symbolize the unlimited pursuit of appetite, but a willingness to use one?s property in ways that support the common good. To achieve a society with this possibility, Plato discussed the role of the guardians. The Guardians and the Three Parts of the Soul As we have mentioned, Plato distinguished three parts to the soul. In addition to the rational part that deliberates with the intention to determine truth, there is the part referred to as appetite and the spirited part. The appetite, says Socrates, ?is the largest part in each person?s soul and is by nature most insatiable for money.? Moreover the appetite is motivated by the ?pleasures of the body.?33?Still, the appetite can be made subject to the commands of reason. One basis for this contention is the presence of the spirited part. Socrates views the spirited part as the ?helper of the rational part,? or as the dimension of the soul committed to see that the rational conception of good order is realized.34Socrates says, ?I don?t think you can say that you?ve ever seen spirit, either in yourself or anyone else, ally itself with an appetite to do what reason has decided must not be done.?35?In resisting?appetite but in promoting the goals of reason, the spirited part manifests courage because, in holding steadfast to the ?declarations of reason about what is to be feared and what isn?t,? the spirited part enables individuals to endure the pain of promoting the reasonable course.36?Here, the spirited part signifies a desire to win honor from others for upholding the common good. Moreover, for Socrates, the spirited part must be ?rightly nurtured,? lest instead of courage it manifests itself as ?hard and harsh.?37?In this case, as opposed to working for the goals of reason, it might work against them. This view suggests that the spirited element is a fierce sort of passion or emotion that, if improperly developed, harms instead of helps the quest to realize the common good. There are several other important implications to be gleaned here as well. First, Plato is not saying that the appetite can or should be completely suppressed. Still, however, the appetite must be constrained by reason and the spirited part, lest appetite lead to a situation in which individuals are prone, as Socrates says, to seek to ?enslave and rule over the classes it isn?t fit to rule, thereby overturning everyone?s whole life.?38?Here, those who are motivated by their appetite to acquire wealth and luxuries, for instance, must accept the regimen of a society that requires them to conduct their lives in keeping with the norms established by reason. The problem, then, for Plato, and this is the second important implication of his three-part view of the soul, is to harness both the appetite and the spirited part so that each serves the goals posited by reason. To this end, Plato emphasized the importance of a special class of citizens, whom he called?guardians. Now, there are different types of guardians, and furthermore, guardians have two major functions, ruling and guarding the city. The ?best of the guardians,? as Socrates referred to them, are rulers.39?Those guardians, who have acted both as rulers and as protectors of the city, presumably through military exploits, are referred to as?complete guardians. Younger people, who show promise of being guardians in the future, but who have as yet not proved themselves capable of being complete guardians, are called?auxiliaries?who act as assistants to the guardians.40?The auxiliaries assist the guardians by supporting their objectives and helping to carry them out.41?The auxiliaries would certainly help the guardians fulfill their military duties. In the latter role, guardians would manifest courage and a desire for honor, as well as the various skills associated with soldiering. For Plato, it is a mistake to believe that people, who have expertise in other areas of life, say as farmers or craftsmen, will also have the knowledge and skill needed to be good warriors. In all cases, the complete guardians act from an unstinting commitment to protect the society from ?external enemies and internal friends.?42 Moreover, guardians must be properly educated so that they are able to perform their functions well. Here, Plato?s key point is that, without a proper system of training, individuals will not attain the appropriate degree of civic virtue that will enable them to act in the best interests of society. Speaking specifically of the auxiliaries, for instance, who possess military prowess, it is important to make certain that they do not use that power against the best interests of the people they are supposed to protect.43Indeed, we are told that guardians will ?be gentle to their own people and harsh to the enemy.?44?That is why to the question

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.