Sample Solution
The three-step control method is a powerful tool that can be used by health care executives to ensure their organization meets both its short-term and long-term goals. This approach involves first setting objectives, then developing strategies for achieving them and finally implementing measures of control (Gardner et al., 2017).
To utilize this system in my own organization I would begin by identifying the desired outcomes that need to be achieved over time. This may include improving patient satisfaction levels or increasing efficiency in certain processes. Once these objectives have been established I could then develop plans for meeting them which would involve delegating tasks and responsibilities among staff members while ensuring they receive adequate resources and support (Kahn & Katz, 2018).
Finally , it is essential to put controls into place that measure progress towards these goals on an ongoing basis. This includes collecting feedback from employees about how efficiently processes are running as well as tracking any changes in patient satisfaction ratings so that issues can be quickly identified and addressed (Woodward & Woodward, 2019). Additionally, having regular meetings with supervisors to review progress reports will help ensure everyone is on track towards achieving the desired results (Woodward & Woodward, 2019).
Overall, the three-step control method provides a framework for effectively managing an organization in order to achieve desired outcomes over time. By following this system health care executives can ensure their organizations remain efficient while also providing quality services.
ombatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for figh
