Take Home Final Exam Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Take Home Final Exam - Research Paper Example The limits of closeness are defined in one’s life through the relationships that were established. According to Marshall (2003), â€Å"a relationship is the mutual sharing of life between two or more persons† (p. 163). In explaining the nature of relationships, Marshall (2003) actually begun explaining the concept of mutuality, as a crucial facet in defining explicit contribution of knowledge, skills, or abilities to the interaction. One strongly believes that the aspect of mutuality and the class or category of the relationship would define the extent of closeness or intimacy that is applied. For instance, the classes of relationships, as discussed by Marshall (2003) distinguished between instrumental or cooperative, versus social or consummatory (p. 167). Likewise, the characteristics of relationships clearly included aspects of intimacy or closeness; and scope or extent (Marshall, 2003, p. 167). One is convinced that in social or consummatory relationships, there are more opportunities to establish greater intimacy and closeness. Interpersonal relationships that have been effectively established in one’s life include relationships with family members (parents and siblings), peers (friends and acquaintances), special loved ones (third parties who one developed close or intimate relationships with during one’s life span), and colleagues in the work setting. Within these relationships, one could assert leadership skills and related specifically defined limits of closeness, depending on the role in the relationship that is assumed. For instance, within the family circle, one could assume the role of an eldest sibling and therefore evidentenly assume a legitimate power by virtue of one’s position of birth. As such, one could exemplify leadership role as an authority in delegating tasks or in providing guidance and direction to the next siblings. Likewise, the limits of closeness in this type of social relationship is extended on ly insofar as familial bonds are established. Thus, as a sibling and a child to one’s parents, it is expected that there is a comfortable level of closeness where private information are assumed to be known and exchanged only within the members of the nuclear family. At the same token, despite sharing similar information regarding family matters or relevant issues concerning each family member, each member also expects a level of privacy and confidentiality that is still maintained. Thus, although a certain level of closeness and intimacy is a given fact within the family circle, there is still a limit to the closeness in terms of matters pertaining each of the member’s personal life. The role of relationships within the work setting is more challenging in terms of establishing and defining limits of closeness or intimacy. This concept was clearly explained by Marshall (2003) when he asserted that â€Å"leaders are therefore generally advised not to have personal frie nds among their congregation, because such friendships cause problems† (p. 173). Leaders or managers at work are expected to delineate their role as a superior to that of being a personal friend, for instance, to one or two of office colleagues. Any preferential attention or affectionate behavior manifested by the leader to a subordinate could be construed as an action of favoritism and is therefore a violation of the policy of avoiding conflicts of interests. Thus, there should be a limit to the closeness that is exhibited within a work environment to abide by the standards of professionalism, as well as conform to ethical, moral and legal standards. It was therefore appreciated from Marshall’s (2003) affirmation that â€Å"the question of intimacy in personal relationships can be something of a