You will utilize the week 4 change model for this assignment. Review the feedback/ remarks and make any changes or modifications necessary for the submission of this assignment.
Evaluate the performance of your organization or department (Prime Healthcare Organization). Identify an area that would significantly benefit from initiating a change (refer to week 4 assignment). Write a paper (1,500-1,750 words) in which you describe the particular area you propose to address through a change initiative. Include the following for your company:
- Discuss the issues in this area and the current outcomes as a result of the issues.
- Describe the external and/or internal driving forces, contributing issues, and the people affected.
- Evaluate the stakeholders involved and discuss how they will be affected by your change initiative.
- Clarify your role and responsibility as a change leader. Discuss the leadership theory (or theories) you will use to guide the change process.
- Discuss the change agents you need to recruit in order to successfully implement your change. Describe the roles of these change agents.
- Utilize your change model to develop strategies: (a) Explain the relevance of this model to your organization; and (b) Present the strategic aspects using your model. Be sure to clearly define the purpose of each aspect, the people involved, and the actions that need to be taken.
- Identify, or predict, the potential barriers to change. Discuss possible ways to overcome these obstacles, including methods for dealing with emerging or unforeseen circumstances that could impede implementation.
- Describe the evaluation methods you will use to determine the level of success of your change initiative. Discuss what metrics or measurable determinates you will use.
- Propose strategies to anchor change or support continuous change.
- Establish how your change plan supports the organizational mission/goal, genuinely addresses stakeholder concerns, and will serve as an equitable contribution for the community or society overall.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63). Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7). Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised. Jus in bello The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323). First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would>GET ANSWER