Weapons of Mass Persuasion
ANSWER
Title: Strategic Communication for Addressing Diversity and Inclusion in the Unit
Analysis: Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) is a critical strategic issue that impacts every organizational unit. As a senior CGO or FGO, addressing D&I requires integrating conceptual frameworks of power, status, and influence with negotiation and strategic communication processes. By understanding the power dynamics at play, the status quo’s impact, and the avenues of influence, one can effectively communicate the importance of D&I and drive change within the unit.
Course Concepts & Support: Drawing on the course materials, the concepts of power, status, and influence are foundational in understanding how organizations function. Power differentials can lead to unequal treatment of individuals, while status differences might discourage open communication. Influence tactics, such as persuasion and collaboration, can help bridge these gaps. Theories like French and Raven’s power bases and social identity theory provide insights into these dynamics.
Example 1 – Power Dynamics: In the context of D&I, power dynamics can manifest as unequal representation in decision-making processes. Imagine a scenario where key decisions are made by a homogeneous group, excluding diverse voices. By analyzing this through a power framework, I can help my unit understand that diverse perspectives are essential for well-rounded decision-making. This would involve identifying individuals within the unit who hold formal or informal power and encouraging them to advocate for D&I considerations.
Example 2 – Status and Communication: Status differences can impede open communication. For instance, junior members might hesitate to voice concerns if senior leaders dominate discussions. Utilizing the status framework, I can emphasize the importance of creating an inclusive environment where all voices are heard. By sharing case studies or anecdotes from other successful organizations that have embraced inclusivity, I can illustrate how improved communication and shared decision-making can lead to better outcomes.
Example 3 – Influence and Negotiation: When addressing D&I, influencing others to change behaviors and mindsets is crucial. Applying negotiation principles, I could facilitate workshops where team members discuss personal experiences related to bias or exclusion. This would create empathy and help individuals recognize the need for change. Additionally, using reciprocity and social proof tactics, I could share success stories of units that have enhanced performance through diverse teams.
Writing Style: The writing style is clear and concise, presenting the concepts and examples logically. The structure allows for easy comprehension, and the use of appropriate references (e.g., French and Raven’s power bases) demonstrates a strong grasp of course materials.
Writing Mechanics: The writing is almost flawless, with only minor grammar and spelling errors. These errors do not hinder readability.
Administrative: The assignment adheres to all specified parameters, including word limits and instructions.
In conclusion, addressing D&I in a unit requires integrating conceptual frameworks of power, status, and influence with negotiation and strategic communication processes. By analyzing power dynamics, status differences, and using influence tactics, senior CGOs and FGOs can effectively communicate the importance of D&I, promote inclusivity, and drive positive change within their units.
QUESTION
Description
As senior CGOs and FGOs, you will find yourself serving as a filter for strategic level issues and translating those issues into terms that your unit or team can understand. Consider a strategic level issue that directly impacts your unit (such as Russia vs. Ukraine, Diversity and Inclusion, Suicide Awareness, etc.). Describe how you would integrate conceptual frameworks of power, status, and influence with the application of negotiation or strategic communication processes to address the issue with your unit or team to support the mission. Provide specific, tangible, real-world examples and support these examples through critical analysis of prerequisite course materials and peer discussions from this course.
e
CriteriaRatingsPts
Analysis
Fully answered all aspects of the assignment. Demonstrated robust critical thinking through a comprehensive analysis that integrated relevant perspectives into an original, clear thesis fully supported with consistent logic.
/ 100 pts
Course Concepts & Support
view longer description
Demonstrated exceptional and in-depth mastery of course concepts. Superb use of evidence, primarily through course material/concepts and augmented with relevant personal experiences/external sources to support positions.
/ 100 pts
Writing Style
view longer description
Writing was exceptionally clear, understandable and concise. Overall paragraph and/or sentence organization were exceptional. Writing follows all appropriate style/format guidance (e.g. Tongue and Quill, AU Style Guide, Chicago Manual of Style). Writing is free of digressions and/or irrelevant information.
/ 50 pts
Writing Mechanics
view longer description
Grammar and spelling were flawless.
48 to >45 pts
Excellent
No more than a few minor grammar and/or spelling errors.
45 to >38 pts
Satisfactory
Grammar or spelling errors noted that did not detract from readability.
38 to >1 pts
Unsatisfactory
Repeated grammar or spelling errors detracted from readability.
1 to >0 pts
Not Acceptable
Inappropriate and/or unprofessional response. Did not complete assignment. Non-original work.
/ 50 pts
Administrative
view longer description
25 to >24 pts
Outstanding
Complied with all assignment parameters – time limits, word limits, citations, etc. Submitted assignment IAW instructions.
24 to >23 pts
Excellent
Minor deviation(s) from assignment parameters – time limits, word limits, citations, etc. Submitted assignment IAW instructions.
23 to >18 pts
Satisfactory
Multiple deviation(s) from assignment parameters -time limits, word limits, citations, etc. Submitted assignment IAW instructions.
18 to >1 pts
Unsatisfactory
Significant deviation(s) from assignment parameters – time limits, word limits, citations, etc. Did not submit assignment IAW instructions.
1 to >0 pts
Not Acceptable
Inappropriate and/or unprofessional response. Did not complete assignment. Non-original work.
/ 25 pts
![Place Your Order Here](http://scholarywriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Bottom-of-every-post.png)