In Assignments 2.1 (Part 1) and 2.2 (Part 2) of the Justification Report, you built up the major parts of your formal,

//In Assignments 2.1 (Part 1) and 2.2 (Part 2) of the Justification Report, you built up the major parts of your formal,

In Assignments 2.1 (Part 1) and 2.2 (Part 2) of the Justification Report, you built up the major parts of your formal,

In Assignments 2.1 (Part 1) and 2.2 (Part 2) of the Justification Report, you built up the major parts of your formal, researched justification report (Problem Statement, Overview of Alternatives, Criteria, Methods, Evaluation of Alternatives, Findings and Analysis, and References). For Part 3 you will begin by inserting your revisions of Parts 1 and 2 based on your instructor’s suggestions. Then, you will include a few new sections. Note: Some sections presented below are out of order so pay attention to where the section should go (for instance, the Transmittal should be the second page of your report based on the provided template). It is essential that you present the final report in the correct section order.

Use the basic outline below to draft your paper. Organize your responses to each question under the following section headings:

Preliminary Parts (for Question 1)
Introduction (for Question 2)
Problem Statement (for Question 2b)
Terminology (for Question 2c)
Major Sections of the Report (for Question 2d)
Scope and Limitations of the Research (for Question 2e)
Recommendation (for Question 3)
References (for Question 4)

Using the provided template from Week 7, write Part 3 to complete a single-spaced report in which you:

Create the preliminary parts of the report that precede the Introduction (after reading Chapter 11 in the textbook). Each element (1a to 1d) appears on a separate page (1a should be page 1, 1b should be page 2, etc.). The preliminary part includes:
Title Page
Transmittal (stand-alone business letter)
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Create an introduction that tells what your report is about. The introduction includes:
Begin with a general introduction paragraph that gives the reader any needed background information on the company or problem.
Include the Problem Statement that you already created and revised in Part 1.
Include terms that readers will need to know in order to understand the report.
Briefly summarize the major sections and findings of the report developed in Parts 1 and 2. Note: This is in addition to including the revised sections not instead of including the revised previous sections from Parts 1 and 2.
Discuss what your report will cover and what it will not (including limitations such as research, time, information, or any other factors the reader should consider when reading the report).
Create the Recommendation section of the Report.
Provide a one to two (1-2) sentence recommendation based on what your Evaluation of Alternatives and Findings and Analysis sections have determined is the most feasible alternative (i.e., solution) to the problem in the Problem Statement.
Create the References section, which goes at the end of the Report by pasting in your revised References page.

Note: Remember to organize the report by the section headings. The report should reflect a style and format appropriate for business; single spacing and bullet points are acceptable for formal business reports.

Your assignment must:

Be typed, single spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, your name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.



Justification Report
Beri Tar Kpumbu
Dr. Ephraim Okoro
ENG 315: Professional Communications
Strayer University
October 24, 2016.

Problem Statement
The main problem affecting the organization is the lack of a team identity. This is a major issue as it contributes significantly to the lowered productivity of the group as a whole. When an organization lacks a team identity, this means that the members of this firm do not feel responsible for each other in any way (Banfield, 2011). In this sense, they lack accountability when it comes to completing the objectives set out for the team as a whole. Person A will not feel pushed if Person B does not complete his or her work. In such a scenario, the employees will only be willing to claim responsibility insofar as they are personally involved. If the project fails because of Person A, then Person B will gladly let it so as to avoid claiming joint responsibility. This makes the work tedious and labored. It also lowers cohesion as each team member will be working to fulfill their personal goals rather than work for the collective good. It is an important issue to address as it is currently affecting the contribution that the team is making. Without a primary focus on the success of the group, there may be even less productivity as time goes by. It is necessary for the employees to feel mutually accountable to each other and in that sense provide an identity for the entire team.

Overview of alternatives
It is important to recognize and identify that there is a problem in the first place. Once it becomes inevitable that there is a problem, it is necessary to provide alternatives that can be used to rectify the issue at hand. Enhancing the communication within the group may be useful. The main reason that this is important comes in the form of the dialogue it creates. Team members who do not identify with each other as part of something bigger do not communicate with each other. Communication is important as it is one of the means through which a team can create strong bonds (Leatherbarrow, Fletcher & Currie, 2010). Ineffective communication can come in different forms. On the one hand, it can be team members who do not allow others to express themselves. It can also be the consequence of cliques within the organization which enhances the isolation and disinterest that others feel.
To rectify this scenario, it is important to ensure that each team member can have their say. Effective communication allows each member to be had and their presence felt (Banfield, 2011). Without this consideration, it becomes difficult as it will ensure that isolation and self-preservation become the norm. Active participation in a cause will bond the team members together. If a person can communicate and contribute in a manner that makes them feel important, then the progress of the team will move forward. This may be where people air out their grievances as well as take the time to show their appreciation for each other. If effective communication is put into practice, then the team will be able to feel assured that each member is considerate of their effort (Luecke & Hall, 2006). It is also effective in determining just how important their contribution is.
Beyond ensuring that communication within the organization is effective, it may be substantial for the organization to put into action a shared vision. There are some scenarios where the application of vision is seen as a trinket rather than a necessity. It may seem hip and cool to have but may not have been effectively thought out. When taking into consideration the importance of a shared vision, it is significant to understand that the vision is what defines the nature of the team’s objectives (Skelton & Anderson, 2008). Putting in place and making sure the team members are on board with the vision in place is crucial to determining just how effective in the long run, the entire team will be. The nature of work environments is that people are often lumped together and forced to produce results. There is often little chemistry initially, and it takes time for people to gel and feel comfortable with each other. In organizations where there is no consideration for the effectiveness of the team, it becomes self-evident that there is no shared vision.
Beyond the team lies the individual who also has his or her personal desires. It is important to have a company vision in which the individual can feel a part of and identify with. It will also ensure that everyone is pulling towards the same direction. Without this common goal, people will often work for themselves at the expense of their teammates. It makes a shared vision very crucial to eliminating the solo attitude that has developed within the organization and fostering more teamwork (Skelton & Anderson, 2008). It is in this realization that the organization can ensure that its focus does not come at the expense of its employees’ personal goals. When they share a similar path, there is all the more chance that the firm will make much more regarding productivity across the board.

Several criteria can be used to determine the effectiveness of the alternatives proposed to solve the issue at hand. An important consideration always lies with the cost of implementation. The two options would be scored on whether or not they will prove costly to introduce. It is significant when considering this situation as the financial impact can at times determine the feasibility of an approach (Skelton & Anderson, 2008). However, productivity levels will also need to be monitored pre and post implementation of the alternative. This is as a means of assessing whether or not the choice in question will be making progress. In this way, the main issue lies with enabling management to take a poignant view of whether or not they are making the total output of the team improve. Another criterion to be used can be the responsiveness of the team to the alternative. The level of resistance to a given a choice is significant as it shows how willing the employees will be to accepting the changes that will take place (Banfield, 2011). It is also important to utilize practicality as a consideration. The alternatives may be well-thought of but may be impractical in the case of the organization in question. The final criteria to be used will be the time it may take to introduce the alternative. In many cases, a good option may need a lot of time to be put into practice. However, there are also times when a choice may not need the same amount of time. Duration is important as it determines whether or not the change will be effective in the long run.

Once, the list of criteria has been put in place, comes the need to select various methods to determine the validity of these choices. It is important to undertake various surveys to assess the employees’ reactions to the changes. Making them anonymous would help immensely in increasing confidence of respondents. This is important as it helps avoid fearful responses due to fear of repercussions. Assessment of objectives and noting their time completion rates is an important method that can be put into practice. In this way, one can effectively decide on the appropriate levels of satisfaction that have been gained from the changes made. They help with regards to the effectiveness of the alternative chosen. Another method that will be used is 360-degree feedback. It is important because it will allow for peer-review systems that are drawn from other employees’ responses (Luecke & Hall, 2006). It will also form a basis for assessing the level of integration that team members have had with each other.

Banfield, P. (2011). Introduction to human resource management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leatherbarrow, C., Fletcher, J., & Currie, D. (2010). Introduction to human resource management: A guide to HR in practice. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Luecke, R., & Hall, B. J. (2006). Performance management: Measure and improve the effectiveness of your employees.
Skelton, J. N., & Anderson, C. J. (2008). Human resource procedures for employee management: The professional’s ready-to-use guide to creating HR policies and promote a productive workforce. St. Louis, MO: Bizmanualz, Inc.


Justification Report
Beri Tar Kpumbu
ENG 315: Professional Communication
Dr. Ephraim Okoro
November 7, 2016.

Justification Report
Evaluation of Alternatives
The report is a revision of part one research based on the instructor’s proposals. The paper also discusses the following sections, evaluation of alternatives, findings, and analysis in correlation with part one report assignment. In part one of the assignment, it was affirmed that the main problem affecting the institution is the lack of team identifies. Team cooperation is necessarily essential for the adequate productivity of the group (Aguinis, 2013). In the absence of this, most of the team members feel irresponsible for any outcome related to the group. Hence, they lack accountability when it comes to the accomplishment of the set goals. In this scenario, most of the members tend to work towards their personal objectives instead of team objectives. Nonetheless, this problem can be solved using various alternatives, which enhances the cohesion of a team.
As indicated in part one of the assignment, two main alternatives can help rectify the problem. First, promoting effective communication is a strategic alternative that creates dialogue within the group. Communication leads to the creation of strong union thus enabling each member to feel responsible (Daniels, 2014). It also creates room for free sharing of ideas, opinions, and desires. In the failure of this consideration, it is impossible to create team identity since the lack of communication automatically breeds self-isolation and self-preservation. Secondly, it is of great importance for the organization to develop a shared vision. In this scenario, application of shared vision is an inevitable requirement. In consideration of the importance of shared vision, it is clear that the vision is a directing tool that guides the team towards achievement of its set objectives. Shared vision ensures that the entire team works towards the same goal. It is also substantial for a company to develop an organizational vision, which any employee can feel part of and easily identify with. This ensures that every group member operates towards the same direction. Without this consideration, it is relatively hard for an organization to have effective and successful group work.
Notably, these alternatives can be addressed using several criteria. To begin with, the main consideration always lies with the cost of implementation. An alternative would be incorporated depending on its financial impacts. It is significant to understand that financial impacts may at times influence the feasibility of an approach (Chandler, 2016). Productivity is also a decisive factor that can be used to determine the effectiveness of the proposed alternatives. It is of necessity to monitor the productivity level of the company before and after implementation of the alternatives. This helps determine the efficacy of each alternative. Another criterion used in the implementation of the alternatives is responsiveness of individuals. This criterion determines the willingness of the team members to accept changes within the organization. It is also equally important for an organization to use practicality as a decisive factor in implementing the alternatives proposed to rectify the problem at hand. The final compulsory criteria would be time duration. This decisive factor determines the period it may take to implement the alternatives. It is significant since it illustrates the effectiveness of the alternatives in the end.
It is essential to have appropriate methods to strengthen the alternatives after deciding on the criteria. The methods used to determine the validity of the proposed options. Undertaking various surveys is substantial to discern workers reactions towards the changes (Daniels, 2014). It is necessary to carry out surveys anonymously to create confidentiality in respondents. It also enhances realistic responses from the participants. Additionally, objectives assessment, as well as time measurement, is a vital method that can be used to verify the validity of these alternatives. This way, the company is in a position to identify any improvement gained as a result of the changes made. Also, the company can recognize the effectiveness of the alternative. The final method is 360-degree feedback. This method is equally important because it allows review of workers responses concerning the changes made. Findings It is notable that effective communication, as well as the company, shared vision is a fundamental requirement for the company, after conducting adequate research on the two alternatives proposed to solve the issue at hand. Effective communication is, in fact, an example of a suitable solution in pursuit of team cohesion. It is significant to understand that general individual’s performance lies with healthy interaction and communication within the organization (Chandler, 2016). Employees who communicate with each other can work together towards the achievement of company objectives. When employees push towards the same direction, the company is likely to have an increment in productivity level. Communication is a necessary tool that enhances togetherness among the workers (Aguinis, 2013). With the presence of strong bonds, every worker is motivated to participate completely in the performance of organizational affairs. This also strengthens self-morale and self-determination enhancing employees to work responsibly.
On the other hand, organizations that have implemented shared vision in their company system confirmed to have experienced great changes in productivity. For instance, home based footwear company has increased productivity after incorporating a company shared vision. Also, the company has improved worker morale, which is a key influence to increment in productivity. This proves that it is indeed significant for a company to put into action a shared vision. The company vision is the measurable tool that is used in formulating organizational objectives (Daniels, 2014). This ensures that workers do not pursue personal objectives instead; they work together in pursuit of the set organizational goals. With this common goal, the company is ensured of commitment and accountability of each group member. It is also true to attest that implementation of the two alternatives is cost-effective. It is not necessarily important for a company to spend fortunes in implementing the options. During the research, most companies such as modern electronic company attested to have spent the affordable amount in the implementation of the solutions. Analysis of the findings using the criteria in part 1 of the assignment

Company 1: home based Footwear Company. In the evaluation of the two alternatives initially stated in part 1 of the assignment, several criteria were employed in establishing the effectiveness of each alternative. An important consideration always lies with the cost of implementation (Daniels, 2014). In home based footwear company, the cost of implementation was lower compared to other companies. It is evidently that the implementation of the two alternatives is effective regarding productivity. The company has a great increment in productivity. Also, the employees have positively embraced changes made in the company. The last two criteria namely, practicality and time duration, are moderate.
Company 2: modern electronic company. In a modern electronic company, things are a little different from the initial company. The cost of implementation is high. This could have been triggered by the poor responsiveness of the team. Practicality and time duration is moderate. Similar to the initial company, the level of productivity is high.
Company 3: Software Development Company
The cost of implementation is moderately high. It has an increment in productivity level. Responsiveness of the team is high. Practicality is average. Time duration is relatively high. Company 4: styles and Design Company
The cost of Implementation of the two alternatives is low. There is high productivity level. Responsiveness of the team is high. Practicality and time duration are average.
In summary, the above chart is a clear representation of how several criteria can be used to determine the effectiveness of the options proposed to rectify the issue of team disunity. The two options would be effectively implemented depending on the cost of implementation. Clearly, the options influence productivity level. In this way, most of the companies make progress in productivity after implementation of the two alternatives. Responsiveness of the team differs from organization to organization. Some employees embrace the changes positively while others take time in accepting the changes. Practicality also differs from company to company. This criterion depends on the nature of the company in question. Lastly, the time duration in which the alternatives take to be completely implemented varies from organization to organization. Time duration is significant as it determines the effectiveness the changes in the end.

Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance Management. Pearson.
Chandler, M. T. (2016). How Performance Management is Killing Performance and what to do about it: Rethink, Redesign, Reboot. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Daniels, A. (2014). Performance Management: Changing Behaviors that Drive Organizational Effectiveness. Atlanta, GA: Performance Management Publications.

Click to Download Solution

Purchase Solution $26

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [22.35 KB]

By | 2019-10-31T07:05:41+00:00 October 31st, 2019|English|0 Comments

About the Author:

Leave A Comment