A feeling of minor to extreme discomfort, known as embarrassment or awkwardness, is typically felt when someone does anything that is socially inappropriate or frowned upon and is seen by or made known to others. Often combined with shame and guilt, embarrassment is referred to as a “self-conscious feeling” and can severely affect a person’s thinking or conduct. Therefore, I become humiliated once I utter foolish statements in front of a group of people (Krishna et al. 499). I perform the bizarre “oh-no-after-you” dance with random bystanders on the sidewalk. The same acute embarrassment I felt when speaking out of turn when I was made fun of or when I messed up could cause us to wake up in the middle of the night, so it could also be stealthy.
Days, years, or even decades may pass before one forgets how an individual felt at the wholly weak point. Therefore, if left uncontrolled, the embarrassment may develop into intense feelings of guilt or shame. Additionally, it might be challenging to admit that I felt humiliated or embarrassed about my actions at the time (Krishna et al. 499). Being embarrassed is a personal feeling frequently made worse by the worry that everyone is looking at a person and criticizing the individual when, in reality, nearly no one will even notice.
Fortunately, there are a few well-known opening lines for discussing feelings of embarrassment caused by one’s behavior. There are various methods to handle this, but each must address the core issue in which relationships and individuals cannot develop, evolve, or heal if embarrassment or shame are not acknowledged (Krishna et al. 500). It may be catastrophic to allow humiliation to fester. Even worse, it may cause anger in interpersonal interactions or a reluctance to be honest in other contexts. The appropriate approach to conveying emotions is still challenging.
Work Cited
Krishna, Aradhna, Kelly B. Herd, and Nilüfer Z. Aydınoğlu. “A Review of Consumer Embarrassment as a Public and Private Emotion.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, vol. 29, no. 3, 2019, pp. 492–516, doi:10.1002/jcpy.1086.
The Major Alliances Of World War I
World War I became an arena of the bloody confrontation between two major “armed camps” of the era — the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente. The former consisted of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, which later switched sides and joined the Entente, while the latter was formed by Great Britain, France, and Russia (Wilde, 2020). Ironically enough, the process of Europe’s division into two hostile military alliances began with the intention of creating a balance of powers that would prevent a full-scale continental war.
The chain of events leading Europe toward World War I started in the 1870s when unified Germany emerged as a new empire. Otto von Bismarck, the famous German chancellor, feared that rivals like France and Austria-Hungary might attempt to destroy their ambitious neighbor. Consequently, Bismarck decided to form a powerful alliance in order to protect Germany and prevent large-scale wars in Europe. In the beginning, the chancellor improved relationships with Austria-Hungary and Russia by establishing the Three Emperors League. When Russia withdrew from the league, Germany proceeded to form the Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary in 1878. Finally, in 1882 two empires persuaded Italy to join the union, thus forming the Triple Alliance (Wilde, 2020). As such, Central Europe turned into one of the armed camps for future war.
At the same time, Great Britain, France, and Russia were becoming concerned about the actions of German diplomacy. In particular, Great Britain felt that the rise of the Triple Alliance might threaten its colonies (Wilde, 2020). Therefore, the British government decided to form a union to deal with a new danger. In particular, Great Britain reached out to France and Russia, other great powers that had reasons to beware Germany. Worried by Kaiser’s Wilhelm II aggressive foreign policy, Great Britain formed Entente Coridale with France in 1904 and signed a similar agreement with Russia in 1907 (Wilde, 2020). The Triple Entente, the mighty counter to the German threat, was officially born. However, as time has shown, the military alliances failed to secure peace and prevent the unprecedented war between the great powers.
Reference
Wilde, R. (2020). The major alliances of World War I. ThoughtCo.
Project Management: Analysis Of The MoSCoW Method
Every organization has a hierarchy of purpose, which helps it determine the projects to prioritize. In addition, it helps organizations allocate resources adequately and guarantee they go where they are needed the most. Resources allocation is essential at the operational land strategic level because it determines the success or failure of a business (Kharzi et al., 2020). Many models are used to determine the prioritization of the projects; however, this study will analyze the MoSCoW method.
The MoSCoW method is quick and simple for deciding what is important to the stakeholders. It is an acronym for must-have, should-have, could-have, and won’t-have elements (Kharzi et al., 2020). The must-have elements represent the initiatives that the company cannot do without. These are the things that an organization needs to complete its mandatory tasks (Kharzi et al., 2020). Should-have initiatives are below the must-have and include essential elements for a product or project to release but are not vital. The function will still work out if not there, but they add significant value to the project.
Could-have initiatives can be termed as nice-to-have because they are not necessary to the main function of the process or project. In addition, they have a much smaller effect than the could-have initiatives when left out (Kharzi et al., 2020). Finally, there are will-not-have initiatives the team chooses not to have in a specific release. These initiatives are not highly needed during the specific time of release. Some of the will-not-have initiatives become a priority in future releases due to technological advancements.
This study shows that it is essential to prioritize resources to ensure that a company meets its objectives using the available resources. The MoSCoW methods provide a clear guideline for classifying the products to meet these specific needs using the must-have, should-have, could-have, and won’t-have elements. When used strategically, this model can lead to the success of a business; however, when not utilized, it can cause failure.
Reference
Kharzi, R., Chaib, R., & Akni, A. (2020). Prioritizing the actions to be undertaken in health and safety at work: case study region of Tiaret. International Journal of Law and Management, 62(3), 267–275.