This competency will allow you to examine the challenges of leading change and identify a real-life situation in which change was successfully implemented.
Your boss needs you to develop an employee engagement survey that consists of 10 questions that will be administered through email to all employees. She hands you the following requirements that must be addressed within the survey:
Organizational commitment type.
Monetary commitment – motivated by money
Continual commitment – robotic employee
Affective commitment – motivated by passion
Leader-member exchange to the supervisor.
What is the relationship between the employee and the supervisor?
Leader-member exchange to the organization.
What is the employee’s relationship to the operation?
Perception of support from the supervisor.
Perception of support from the organization.
Your job is to submit to your boss a questionnaire that contains 10 specific questions that integrate the defined requirements above along with any other necessary information you believe would add value to understanding the employees’ thoughts and feelings about the organization.
Additionally, you need to write a one-page summary of why you chose these 10 questions. Include an introduction demonstrating an understanding of organizational commitment, leader-member exchange, and perception of support. Within the body of the summary, provide comparative research with other possible engagement surveys. Lastly, within the conclusion, explain why your survey will add operational value to the organization.
Contentions Against Smoking Bans GuidesorSubmit my paper for examination smokingAlong with such huge social issues, for example, liquor addiction, STDs, and prejudice, smoking cigarettes stays in the quantity of the most noteworthy ones. Open regard for the issue of smoking cigarettes stays critical; likewise, smoking has experienced radical controlling measures, for example, bans from various social insurance and legislative associations. Be that as it may, in spite of the appearing soundness remaining behind these measures, smoking bans are in certainty substantially less reasonable than it is normally considered. To begin with, a smoking boycott is a sign of social shamefulness in its unadulterated structure. Despite the fact that smoking has gotten less mainstream in the ongoing decade, there still lives a lot of smokers of any age whose rights are encroached upon by such measures. Truth be told, we are discussing isolation dependent on a way of life criteria (UnhealthyNationFS). Smoking is destructive and undesirable for the individuals who don't smoke, yet forcefully denying individuals the rights to their propensities is inadmissible because of a few reasons. Smoking stays a lawful action, and tobacco is a legitimate substance. In contrast to liquor, smoking tobacco doesn't cause individuals to carry on deficiently, and doesn't present impending peril to the wellbeing of a smoker or individuals around them—not at all like an alcoholic individual who can act forcefully or offending towards others. In any case, smokers regularly need to leave a foundation when they invest energy to smoke a cigarette (paying little mind to the climate conditions, incidentally), though alcoholic individuals are permitted to remain inside. Moreover, rather regularly, foundations today have no different spaces for smokers and non-smokers, so smokers frequently need to either acknowledge the standards, or leave. It is odd law based social orders don't bargain in these conditions (UnhealthyNationFS). In addition, smokers today reserve no option to smoke in various other open spots, for example, sea shores, open vehicle stops, or stops. Truth be told, smokers need to manage zero resistance and direct oppression of the non-smoking greater part. This is undemocratic; for example, in the United Kingdom, where an absolute boycott has been empowered, about 68% of individuals restricted to such an authoritative measure, as the British Office for National Statistics revealed (Spiked). Be that as it may, regardless of such resistance, the all out boycott was forced in any case, since the impact of campaigning bunches who were against smoking was solid. Comparable circumstances can regularly be seen in the United States. Despite the fact that smoking stays a risky and unsafe propensity, smokers are indistinguishable individuals from non-smokers, and have similar rights. In any case, since smoking bans began to be forced, it appears smokers face what might be compared to isolation dependent on way of life criteria. Smoking stays a lawful occupation, and tobacco is a legitimate substance that doesn't make an individual demonstration fiercely or annoying—in contrast to the utilization of liquor. In any case, smokers face rights encroachment more frequently than the individuals who misuse liquor. What's more, smoking bans are some of the time forced in an enemy of law based way, as it has occurred in Great Britain, where an absolute boycott had been forced paying little mind to noteworthy restriction. In the event that lobbyists can implement absolute bans in spite of prominent attitude, what else can be prohibited essentially in light of the fact that affluent people long for their inclinations to be established? References Jackson, Joe. "A Dozen Reasons to Stub Out the Smoking Ban." Spiked. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. . Madison, Louis. "Solid however Unfair." UnhealthyNationFS. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. .>GET ANSWER