Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe basic idea of this article comes from factual events there are disputes between the leaders of the church organization and the members they lead. Disputes are caused by the leadership model run by the leader in organizing the organization that does not match the expectations (expectations) of the subordinates. The research method used in the writing of this article is a qualitative method with a literature approach and in-person interviews. The description of this paper, the church organization stands on the permission of God initiated by His servants. With the organization, the church provides a sketch of who is the leader and who is being led. The leadership model needed in the organization of the church by a leader is non-tribalism, open to input and criticism, not concerned with personal interests but not to self-indulgence in practical politics. The achievement of organization missions is on the shoulders of the leader, whether to mobilize all the resources possessed by the organization components of the church. AbstrakIde dasar dari artikel ini berangkat dari peristiwa faktual, adanya perselisihan antara pemimpin organisasi gereja dengan anggota yang dipimpin. Perselisihan itu timbul ditenggarai oleh model kepemimpinan yang dijalankan oleh si pemimpin dalam penataan organisasi tidak sesuai dengan ekspektasi (harapan) oleh bawahan. Metode yang peniliti gunakan dalam penulisan artikel ini adalah metode kualitatif dengan pendekatan kepustakaan disertai wawancara secara langsung. Uraian dari tulisan ini, organisasi gereja berdiri atas seijin Tuhan yang diprakarsai oleh hamba-hamba-Nya. Dengan adanya organisasi gereja memberikan sketsa siapa yang menjadi pemimpin dan siapa yang dipimpin. Model kepemimpinan yang dibutuhkan dalam penataan organisasi gereja oleh seorang pemimpin adalah tidak sukuisme, terbuka kepada masukan dan kritikan, tidak mementingkan kepentingan pribadi maupun golongan serta tidak menceburkan diri pada politik praktis. Tercapainya sebuah visi-misi organisasi ada dalam pundak sang pemimpin, apakah ia bisa menggerakkan semua sumber daya yang dimiliki oleh kompomen organisasi gereja tersebut.

This article explores how the Moscow-Washington hotline has contributed to crisis stability. Drawing on symbolic interactionist role theory, the article argues that the hotline provides leaders with an opportunity to engage in altercasting behavior so as to trust each other, even if only temporarily, when they contact each other through the hotline to communicate about a situation they define as a crisis. This function of the hotline is particularly useful when leaders have not managed to develop interpersonal trust between them. This new understanding of the hotline questions the dominant view that it merely facilitates communication, and improves on existing symbolic understandings of the device by offering a conceptualization that explains why the intentions with which it is used to communicate are seen as credible. Furthermore, seeing trust as role contributes to trust scholarship in International Relations by offering a middle ground between defining trust as interests, which are often ambiguous in crises, and as shared identity, which is unattainable between adversaries in the short term. We use two historical cases studies, the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War, to illustrate our theoretical claims.

This article examines the role the Moscow–Washington Hotline played in the 1967 Six-Day War, focusing on the Soviet side. We argue that the Soviet Union used the Direct Communication Link much more broadly than had been intended when the Hotline was agreed on in 1963 mainly because Moscow did not assign the Hotline any special diplomatic significance. We also show that the Hotline is a poor channel for crisis negotiations, and its efficacy as a communication tool is compromised if regular diplomatic channels cannot match its speed. Finally, we challenge the existing debate in the historiography of the Six-Day War, arguing for the importance of studying the implications of Soviet behaviour rather than Soviet intentions.