In this issue of determining who is at fault for the previous incident, I think it is dependent on several other factors. Nicholas had a responsibility to provide information and a recommendation, while Idi Amin was responsible for making a decision. The question begins with whether or not Nicholas provided all of the information. I disagree that Nicholas was responsible for convincing Amin. Nicholas needed to present all relevant information about the situation and then make a recommendation based on that information. If he did that, then Nicholas is not at fault; he completed all responsibilities under his position of advisor. However, Amin had the responsibility of listening to the information that Nicholas presented and the recommendation provided, and then making a decision. If Nicholas provided all the information and did his part of the job, then the responsibility falls to Amin for poor decision making. He is the one who didnāt listen to his advisorās recommendation, and if the recommendation was made well, then Amin is at fault.
Through this short clip, we can see the importance of the power of persuasion. Different audiences require to be addressed distinctly. In this video, we can see the clear distinction between telling someone what to do and persuading someone to do it. When we tell people what to do, we propose an idea and place the thought in their minds. However, when we attempt to persuade them, we go above and beyond supported by arguments and reasoning to convince them towards going a specific route. Persuasion is an art, and it requires a lot of practice to develop the ability over time. In this particular case, I believe Nicholas, the advisor, is at fault because he could not successfully persuade his audience. When we engage in persuasion, we must pay close attention to who the audience is and adapt our persuasion plan accordingly. In this case, Nicholas must persuade this powerful and hard-headed dictator. It is clearly not an easy task, as we see how violently and irrationally he responds to the critiques made towards him. However, a good persuader must identify in advance what the other personās reaction might be depending on their personalities. When proposing an action plan, the advisor must present all the possible scenarios that could happen if he were to go in the opposite direction and prove that the best course of action is the one he proposes. I donāt think itās a matter of whether Idi Amin heard or not, but instead if Nicholas made himself heard.
Nicholas and Idi Amin show the power of communication and persuasion. They appeared to have a lack of communication which led to a temporary breakdown of trust.
Being an effective and efficient communicator builds trust between people. The vital component of Completed Staff Work is communication. Nicholas could have done some research and evaluated the current political situation. Then developed options and alternatives to the current volatile situation. Lastly, Nicholas could have brought viable recommendations before Idi Amin started his rampage. Nicholas could have persuaded and influenced Idi Aminās decision making prior to chaos breaking out.
Persuasion is vitally important and builds trust. It is used in business professions, legal firms, doctors offices and sporting fields globally everyday.
What a great clip to use to emphasis the importance of persuasion and communication. Especially when dealing with a dictator like Idi Amin, as the individual contributor, you need to communicate clearly and have the ability to persuade. Part of Completed Staff Work includes persuading your boss to follow your advice. Though it is the boss, who makes the final decision, they rely on the individual contributor to provide sound advice. Sometimes this means doing research and writing up a business plan. Other times, it means simply providing advice on the spot. Regardless, you as the individual contributor, must be able to clearly provide that advice with certainty. In the clip, though Nicholas did deliver guidance, he seemed hesitant and usure about it. As a result, Nicholas failed, as the individual contributor, to convince Idi Amin. He did not do his job. CSW cannot be effective if the contributor lacks assertiveness. Though a dictator, Idi Amin has every right to be mad at Nicholas. Amin trusts Nicholas to guide him, and Nicholas initially fails. This is what it means to āmanage your manager.ā
For context of the above posts, on an 8 year old blog post:
Thank you very much for the heads up @John_Yoest ā it looks like quite a few students have recently contributed to the discussion about this powerful scene in a fantastic movie. Iām happy that itās getting discussed; the literal Discourse here is significant, and thatās our goal! 
Alas, dictators all seem to follow that mentality. Nicholas II of Russia - while at first not even consulting the advisor his father told him to listen to - eventually asked for advice, but by that time the advisor (who was actually Nicholasā uncle) gave up and left. Well-informed advisorsā advice was not listened to during the Russo-Japanese War, other regional conflicts and WWI. Nicolas II āknewā more than his advisorsā¦ or so he believed. Disastrous defeat followed after disastrous defeat. The rest was history - the entire extended Romanov family was killed, ended a 300-year rule by the Romanov family
Hitler did the same thing, ignoring his advisors and generals and what he believed should be done - with disastrous results. Other dictators throughout history did the same. On the other hand, there have been weak dictators who did listen to their advisors, but it was the advisors who were truly the evil ones and manipulated the weak-minded ruler into doing what they wanted, no matter how bad things were going to get. Those advisors knew what they were doing and were profiting from it. Iām sure they managed to slink away at the last possible moment to save their own skins.
I agree with you that dictators will do what they think is right and will, more often than not, brush aside even the best advice that could possibly be given.
Regarding the film, I think no matter what Nicholas would have said to Idi Amin, Idi Amin was still going to do what he thought he should do. It would be hard, if not impossible, for a person with that mindset to abandon their driving mentality and listen to someone else. I think even if Nicholas had been more insistent in trying to persuade Idi Amin, even the best of advice would have fallen on deaf ears.
The ābut you did not persuade meā more like an excuse to blame oneās errors on someone else. And remember, an advisorās job is just that: to advise. The advice is always taken into serious consideration and is sometimes completely ignored.
While people communicating the idea have to possess certain qualities and techniques to persuade the audience, a lot depends on the audience itself. Not everyone has the ability to listen to the information, accepting the data without prejudice or personal opinion. In contrast, many people reject the idea even when presented with factual evidence if it contradicts their values or beliefs. That is why Idi Amin is at fault for not listening to Nicholas.
Admittedly, it is easy to put the blame on Nicholas for not persuading Idi Amin and let him take all the responsibility and authority. However, since the action is Idi Aminās, he is the one analyzing the information and making the decision. Thanks to Nicholas, he is aware of the situation and the consequences. Yet, he acts on his own despite the caution or arguments. It is not fair to blame Nicholas for the consequences of not persuading Idi Amin.
In the current situation, Idi Amin chooses the course of action while blaming or thanking Nicholas based on the results or his personal opinion. Their relationship is not reciprocal since Nicholas is an advisor offering the ideas and recommendations while Idi Amin has the final word.
Quite so. It is a narcissism trait.
Jeff, the clip is the best quality that is readily available ā
Well done,
Jack
The message of this article is essentially that, if you want somebody to agree with you or do what you want them to do, it is your responsibility to convince them and effectively prove your point. I think that this idea is true, to a certain extent, especially because it is important to present data and arguments to back up the decisions that one makes. But, I think one of the shortcomings of this concept is that, when an individual is presented with data and facts, they still have the opportunity to choose incorrectly. This makes it more difficult to proactively act upon this idea, as the best persuasion could still be rejected and it wouldnāt make sense to blame anybody but the decision-maker for disregarding facts. On the topic of assigning responsibility to Nicholas or Idi, it would that that the blame falls on Nicholas for failing to convince Idi of the right choice. However, this can only be true if Nicholas did his due diligence in regard to persuading Idi. If Nicholas laid down the facts, supported his arguments with data, and presented this information to Idi and Idi disregarded his advice, the blame should not be placed on Nicholas.
Persuasion is a key factor in many things but I do not believe Nicholas is at fault in this argument for not being persuasive enough to convince a dictator. The one who is at fault is Idi Amin when hired an advisor, someone he could ātrustā but yet again he did not listen. When things didnāt go the way he planned he blamed Nicolas for not persuading him enough, but he is the one who did not listen to the advice from the start. Sometimes people would do what they want even if they try to persuade them. Not even a person who masters the art of persuasion is going to be able to convince a dictator to back down from their actions. In a regular work setting a staff member would be 100% be able to persuade his boss if he masters this art but when talking about someone leading a country on the basis of dictatorship would not be the case. That is why I think Nicholas is not at fault for not persuading Idi Amin enough.
This clip and article show exactly what needs to be done in order for a superior to make effective decisions. The people that the superior surrounds themself with have a good relationship and are trusted. They know how they think and act and place them in a specific position. These people aid in decision-making. These contributors have a duty not only to give recommendations, but also they have a duty to persuade. They must present their superior with the best possible data and argument for why their recommendation is most effective. If the superior is unaware of that, the contributor has not done their job properly. In the case of who is at fault, Nicholas is for not selling his idea. He did not make an argument that presented his recommendation as the best option. Idi cannot be blamed for not listening in this situation. Bosses and managers are extremely busy. One weak recommendation can easily be forgotten. A solid and effective recommendation will be remembered and put into action. Idi heard Nicholasā idea but he was not persuaded by it. Nicholas failed to fully do his job and persuade Idi. This is a prime example of what not to do in Completed Staff Work. Individual contributors or staffers must complete their job in every aspect so the boss can make the most effective decision.**
The exchange between Nicholas and Idi Amin brought up some interesting discussion points. Idi Amin becomes upset with Nicholas after seeing articles trashing his reputation. He says that Nicholas recommended a course of action, but did not persuade him. This demonstrates the clear difference between simply recommending something and actually persuading. Of course, any one can present a recommendation, but who can actually convey why their recommendation should be pursued? Nicholas failed in this area, as Idi Amin pointed out.
When discussing who is at fault in this situation, I am inclined to say both parties may have been. I do not know the full context of the situation, but it seems that it is possible that Nicholas was too passive in his recommendation. Perhaps, he presented his idea in a way that did not allow Idi Amin to feel confident and convinced it was the proper course of action. Meanwhile, it is also possible that Idi Amin failed to truly listen and think through was Nicholas suggested. It is crucial that the boss gives time to recommendations from their staff so they are fully able to understand the recommendation. With the total understanding is when a boss will ultimately be able to make a decision.
When it comes to providing your boss or your team with recommendations, it is extremely important to provide ample reasoning to why you are suggesting this option. When you have enough facts to back up your recommendation, you are more likely to persuade your boss that this is the correct choice to be making. If you do not present thorough research, it will not seem like you are passionate about this choice, thus making the boss less confident in this suggestion. Generally, it is important to show that you are passionate about the topic and that it is the best choice, that way your boss will be persuaded to make this decision. If your boss is relying on recommendations, they have the choice to choose the wrong option, which could be detrimental. In the case of Nicholas and Idi Amin, I would say that Nicholas is at fault. While he did present the information and an option, he did not persuade Idi that it was the right choice. Since Idi was not persuaded enough to make the right choice, it ended badly. Nicholas should have explained that this was the best decision in the most persuasive way, because then the whole situation would have been avoided.
I agree with the point that persuasion is the key to influencing behaviours, beliefs, and actions of others. One of the best ways to achieve successful persuasion is to lead by example. Persuasion requires sharing true stories or working exceptionally good when others are seeing you at work. Persuasion can be achieved by reading or listening to the qualities of those who are considered to be successful, wise, and rightly guided.
In the given example, IDI AMIN is majorly at fault because he should have listened to his adviser. The first step in taking advice or consultation from someone is ensuring that the person belongs to the same group to which you belong or both people share the same goal. In the example, it seems that the loyalty or belonging of the advisor has already been established for some time. Because IDI AMIN is working as an advisor of the other person, his responsibility is only to send a message and give good advice.
However, the other person GARRIGAN is also at fault but his fault is not as big as that of IDI AMIN. GARRIGAN should be made his message as appealing and clear as possible and he should have repeated the advice many times.
I believe that, in this scenario, the advisor to Idi Amin, Nicholas, is at fault. As Idi Amin stated in the video clip provided, Nicholas did not fully persuade his superior on the correct course of action with a situation. This resulted in Idi Amin not taking the advice of Nicholas seriously. This caused Idi Aminās reputation being bashed in the papers. The papers called him a āMadmanā and a āCannibal.ā When Idi Amin angrily explained why he didnāt listen to Nicholas in the first place, he stated it was because Nicholas didnāt give him a convincing reason to not throw the Asians out. After this discussion, Nicholas understood that he needed to persuade his boss to get the proper outcomes and then told Idi Amin that he shouldnāt go after the papers to retaliate because the papers would attack him anyway. Instead, Nicholas advised Idi Amin that he should meet with the paper publishers in person to show them what his real personality is like. This explanation convinced Idi Amin to do this and then he thanked Nicholas for his advice.
In The Last King of Scotland, the dictator Idi Amin and his physician Nicholas are both at fault as neither knew how to lead or follow. Amin did not have trust in Nicholas initially. After the chaos occurred, Idi Amin quickly blamed Nicholas and stated, āYou are my advisor. You are the only one I can trust here.ā He attempts to say that Nicholas did not do enough to persuade him but instead let him down which caused the press to slander the dictator. There was a lack of both leadership and followership between Nicholas and Idi Amin. There was no initial trust and their relationship seems extremely hostile at the beginning. When Nicholas first appeared, Amin was screaming and blaming Nicholas for all that was happening. Yet, once Nicholas understood what was going on and learned how to manage his manager he could calm the dictator and recommend what he thought was best for the manager. Nicholas understands that you have to persuade your manager to have influence over them and actually get things done on time and on budget. Amin and Nicholas were both at fault as they lacked the characteristics needed for Completed Staff Work and instead pointed fingers instead of acting like a true team.
In this quick movie clip a lot is being told both from the dialogue and the actions of the characters. Although Nicholas had made the correct suggestion to Idi Amin in recommending that he not exile the Asian reporters; he is indeed at fault. Earlier in this semester it was said at a nauseam that it is the bosses job to make decisions and it is the subordinate employees jobs to make recommendations backed with facts and logic so that the boss has no other option but to follow through with your recommendation. This fact becomes very apparent in one particular moment in this scene. After screaming about what the reporters have written about him Nicholas says to his boss that he told him not to exile the Asian reporters. After saying this the dictator looks Nicholas square in the eyes and yells āYou did not persuade me Nicholas!ā This is an extremely important part of this scene as it teaches a great lesson. If you give your boss a recommendation and do not persuade him to go with your plan you cannot say āI told you soā. Instead you must ask yourself, Why didnāt my boss listen to me even though I was right? Only after you give a good recommendation to your boss and persuade him will your boss begin to trust you.
After watching this short clip from The Last King of Scotland, we can see the failure and success of Completed Staff work. CSW failed due to the press bashing on the boss, Idi Amin, and then the dictator becomes very upset with his staff. Nicholas then claims that he told Idi Amin to do a certain thing but didnāt persuade his boss to take action. We can put Nicholas at fault for this, because the bossā responsibility is to make decisions, and his staff must do the think to sway the boss into making the right decision. However, after Idi Amin throws his tantrum, he asks Nicholas what he should do about the press. Nicholas then supplies his boss with an adequate solution that will make his boss look good and change the minds of the press. We can see here how CSW failed at first, but then resolved the situation once it was addressed.
This the most dramatic demonstration of a manger and subordinateās relationship. The circumstances of this scene are incredibly tense. One one hand there is Nicholas who is hoping to kill Idi Amin as his only trusted advisor, and on the other there is this frantic dictator whose ego has caused him to boil over into an anger filled rage. Both are not acting in the best way for their position, in fact they are acting the opposite of what is expected. Nicholas, although, learns from his first mistake of not convincing Amin and gives him good advice with reasoning behind it. It is a much more complete form of advice and Amin in turn truly hears him. Even in the worse possible situation a clear act of Completed Staff Work can de-escalate a situation for the better.