At a high level, identify the organization that you chose to study, and provide an overview of its industry, origin, number of employees, net worth, and so forth.
Define and analyze the culture and personality of the organization you selected:
Work performance, morale, and motivation:
Examine the impact of an individual’s personality, organizational variables, employee empowerment, and decision-making autonomy that impact work performance, morale, and motivation.
Identify 2 strategies that your organization can utilize to maximize the contributions of individuals.
Based upon your evaluation and examination of your selected organization, identify and recommend a specific motivational theory to implement at your organization.
Also, explain your rationale for each of the selected options and recommendations.
Work groups or team:
Examine the concept of organizational effectives as it relates to the interactions of members (work groups and teams).
Describe the methods used at your organization to assess the behaviors and attitudes of organizational members.
Identify other options and strategies that your organization can utilize to apply to create effective work groups and teams.
Also, explain your rationale for each of the selected options and recommendations.
Leadership:
Explain how your organization is creating effective leaders.
Identify other options and strategies that your organization can utilize to create effective leadership.
Also, explain your rationale for each of the selected options and recommendations.
Conflict resolution:
Analyze and explain how your organization is effectively supporting conflict resolution.
Evaluate the methods that your selected organization can utilize to enhance collaboration and manage conflict and change within the organization.
Also, explain your rationale for each of the selected options and recommendations.
Develop an implementation plan for one area (work performance, morale and motivation, work groups or team, leadership, and conflict resolution).
Discuss the cultural change implications of your implementation.
Identify the potential resistant behaviors and barriers that may occur during the implementation.
Identify how to reduce the organizational resistant barriers.
Discuss the implications of your recommendations on organizational structure and culture.
When it comes to its culture and personality, LEGO focuses on being creative while also emphasizing collaboration within teams since they believe in the power of collective imagination (LEGO 2020). Work performance is expected to be high with employees being encouraged to explore new ideas without fear of failure thanks largely due to supportive environment provided by supervisors. Additionally, the company places great importance on maintaining morale through transparent communication as well as recognition programs designed reward outstanding contributions from team members thus increasing motivation levels (Khan 2018).
Finally, LEGO has always been committed to providing best possible experience to customers, resulting in numerous successful campaigns over years such as “Rebuild the World” which sought to encourage people to think differently about how to interact one another in their surroundings. This intense focus on customer satisfaction has led them to receive multiple awards recognition in many fields including advertising, game design engineering (Borowy-Reich 2017). Therefore we can conclude that LEGO embodies a culture of responsible innovation combined with dedication towards achieving highest standards of excellence at all times.
Google is the organizational culture I have chosen to analyze. Google’s corporate culture is all about innovation, creativity, and efficiency. The company prides itself on its ability to create products and services that are useful for people around the world. Employees are encouraged to think outside of the box and come up with solutions that will make life easier for customers. Additionally, Googlers (as employees call themselves) strive to work collaboratively and share ideas in order to get things done quickly. They focus on creating a fun work environment where everyone can contribute unique perspectives and feel respected by their peers.
By and large, “”In old Greece and Rome, before the approaching of Christianity, perspectives toward child murder, dynamic willful extermination, and self destruction had would in general be lenient. Numerous old Greeks and Romans had no fittingly characterized confidence in the intrinsic worth of individual human existence, and agnostic doctors probably performed regular early terminations as well as both deliberate and compulsory benevolence killings. Albeit the Hippocratic Vow restricted specialists from giving ‘a dangerous medication to anyone, not regardless of whether requested,’ or from recommending such a game-plan, barely any old Greek or Roman doctors followed the pledge steadfastly. All through old style relic, there was broad help for deliberate demise rather than delayed anguish, and doctors agreed by frequently giving their patients the toxins they mentioned.” (Dowbiggin) Despite the fact that doctors in old times made a similar vow to save lives, they actually gave out toxins to kill patients. Some say that the justification behind the doctors’ activities were on the grounds that Christianity hadn’t been laid out yet. Thus, the rule of “Thall will not kill,” had not yet been composed.
“Since old times, Jewish and Christian scholars have gone against self destruction as conflicting with the human great and with obligations to God. In the thirteenth hundred years, Thomas Aquinas embraced Catholic showing self destruction in contentions that would impact Christian idea about self destruction for quite a long time. Aquinas denounced self destruction as off-base since it contradicts one’s obligation to oneself and the regular tendency of self-propagation; since it harms others and the local area of which the individual is a section; and in light of the fact that it disregards God’s power over life, which is God’s gift. This position exemplified perspectives about self destruction that won from the Medieval times through the Renaissance and Reconstruction.” (ProCon.org) Despite the fact that the discussion is normally about doctor helped self destruction, the truth of the matter is that the patients are as yet commiting self destruction. In the event that an individual who is of sound psyche and can simply decide, in the event that they are introducing self-destructive considerations, policing each option to mediate the endeavor. On the off chance that that is the situation with regular individuals, for what reason would it be advisable for it be any unique for individuals who are wiped out and in the clinic. Assuming that equivalent individual who was wiped out was out on the planet, and came dependent upon somebody and requested that that individual assist with committing suicide since they essentially don’t have any desire to live any longer, the individual likely wouldn’t help them.
During the late eighteenth Hundred years, “The dismissal of self destruction and willful extermination stayed firm, even after large numbers of the new states decriminalized self destruction following the Progressive Conflict. Most of Americans dismissed self destruction’s precedent-based regulation discipline… yet regardless of how thoughtful they were toward the self destruction’s family, most Americans halted far shy of excusing self-murder. As late as the before the war period there existed in the US a firm agreement… against self destruction and benevolence killing.” (Dowbiggin)
In 1999, a case is Michigan sentenced Jack Kevorkian, MD, of homicide. He was the essential ca