Leadership within large organizations

at
Categories
Tags

 

 

Create a thread of at least 500 words for the prompt below. Each thread must include the textbook, 2 scholarly sources (published within the last 5 years), and biblical integration. All citations and references must be in current APA format. Do not repeat the same sources, use of the text or Biblical integration from your former posts.

It is often said by those in leadership within large organizations that, “the only thing constant around here is change!” Continuous change in organizations is certainly one of the most challenging aspects managers face. These vibrant and dynamic work environments create significant challenges for training employees — especially when job tasks/responsibilities frequently change. What are some specific ways to identify training requirements when job responsibilities become a moving target?

 

Sample Solution

Identifying training requirements when job responsibilities become a moving target is essential for organizations to maintain high standards of quality and safety. It can be difficult to keep up in rapidly changing environments, but there are specific strategies that managers and other organizational leaders can implement in order to ensure employees have the necessary training to do their jobs effectively and safely.

The first strategy involves anticipating future change within the organization. Leaders should strive to anticipate upcoming changes before they occur so that they can begin preparing for them in terms of training requirements. This could involve mapping out potential scenarios related to new products or services, organizational restructuring, customer service initiatives, etc., so that it will be easier to identify potential gaps between current employee skillsets and those needed for success under the changed circumstances. Additionally, this process may help prioritize which changes need attention sooner rather than later.

A second strategy is having regular performance conversations between supervisors and employees. Through these conversations leaders can assess whether employees understand their roles well enough and identify any areas where additional learning or support may be necessary (Anders et al., 2018). Having ongoing dialogue regarding individual performance also allows supervisors/managers to provide feedback on an ongoing basis instead of waiting until problems arise from lack of knowledge or understanding.

Finally, involving staff members in decision-making processes related to job tasks or responsibilities can help identify any additional training needs (Rasmussen et al., 2017). For example, if an organization plans on introducing a new product line – staff engagement during the early stages helps inform leadership about current level of knowledge as well as what type of preparation/training may be required prior to launch date.

In conclusion, organizations must realize that effective employee training is key regardless if job tasks/responsibilities remain constant or change regularly over time due its impact on both business operations and workers’ safety outcomes. By anticipating upcoming changes; having regular performance conversations; involving staff members in decision making processes; employers are more likely able efficiently equip their workforce with all the knowledge they need while maintaining high standards of quality assurance and worker safety.

tion, 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 fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interests of all parties.
Overall, jus in bello suggests in wars, harm can only be used against combatants, never against the innocent. But in the end, the aim is to establish peace and security within the commonwealth. As Vittola’s conclusion: ‘the pursuit of justice for which he fights and the defence of his homeland’ is what nations should be fighting for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Thus, although today’s world has developed, we can see not much different from the modernist accounts on warfare and the traditionists, giving another section of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, we can still conclude that there cannot be one definitive theory of the just war theory because of its normativity.

Jus post bellum

Finally, jus post bellum suggests that the actions we should take after a war (Frowe (2010), Page 208).
Firstly, Vittola argues after a war, it is the responsibility of the leader to judge what to do with the enemy (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332).. Again, proportionality is emphasised. For example, the Versailles treaty imposed after the First World War is questionably too harsh, as it was not all Germany’s fault for the war. This is supported by Frowe, who expresses two views in jus post bellum: Minimalism and Maximalism, which are very differing views. Minimalists suggest a more lenient approach while maximalist, supporting the above example, provides a harsher approach, punishing the enemy both economically and politically (Frowe (2010), Page 208). At the last instance, however, the aim of war is to establish peace security, so whatever needs to be done can be morally justified, if it follows the rules of jus ad bellum.
In conclusion, just war theory is very contestable and can argue in different ways. However, the establishment of a just peace is crucial, making all war type situation to have different ways of approaching (Frowe (2010), Page 227). Nevertheless, the just war theory comprises of jus ad bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum, and it can be either morally controversial or justifiable depending on the proportionality of the circumstance. Therefore, there cannot be one definitive theory of the just war but only a theoretical guide to show h

This question has been answered.

Get Answer