In the Singapore Air case you discover that Singapore Airlines (SIA) has been ranked as the best airline in both independent and customer surveys for nearly 3 decades. It serves as a model of a continuously changing organization – continually modernizing, stretching, and serving customers in ways that stimulate strong loyalty and brand equity. It has been a leader of change in its industry, while maintaining a lot of consistency as well. As you reflect on the continuous nature of change in every area of the company, respond to the following prompts as you prepare your discussion thread for this assignment:
What have been SIA’s main ingredients of success?
How has their success become vulnerable?
Why is it difficult to maintain a leadership position of a company like SIA and continuously improve?
What do world-class organizations need to do to improve and change continuously?
least 400 words responding to each prompt and demonstrating course-related knowledge by
11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of the assigned module. . For each thread, students must support their
assertions with at least 2 scholarly citations from peer-reviewed journals, 1 citation from the text,
and one biblical integration all in current APA format. Each reply must incorporate at least 1
scholarly citation from a peer-reviewed journal, 1 citation from the text, and one biblical
integration all in current APA format. Any sources cited must have been published within the
last five years.
SIA’s main ingredient for success is the fact that they operate, not in the transportation business, but in the service business. (Jick, 2003. Simply put, okay is not enough and travelers’ high expectations can only be met through a constant monitoring of how the SIA experience is delivered across the board and by never settling for what has been achieved. This applies to food and beverage offerings, in-flight entertainment, and ground services. Moreover, SIA just thrives to be a little bit better in everything all the time, and that means by adapting to 21st century lifestyles: if adapting flight schedules and prioritizing seat comfort are no-brainer nowadays, SIA is investing in its crew. Technical SOPs are packaged with softer skills like warmth, care, and anticipation of needs. Tangibles elements are important to give great service in the hospitality industry. It also key elements to allow hotel classification. Nevertheless, to make the difference, many service companies are investing in intangible components, such as HR framework to attract, recruit and retain their talents.
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. 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 exam