Literature Review代写:改革建议

2017-02-26 00:30

艾伦的改革建议威胁到工人的工作，这也会对政治领域造成伤害。当艾伦和领导团队正忙着进行他们的改革计划，Murray McCully发表了讲话，改革“已经惹怒了外交的羽毛”。换言之，改革不能成立。McCully指出，“改变”应该参与事奉，如果领导人想应付业务重点的财政压力和新策略。他还说，变化可能会对工信部人员产生深远的影响，应该给不在工部的工人分配更多的任务，也就是说，在工信部打开一些门窗。人们可以看到，McCully是从艾伦的要求不同。McCully的思想是比后者更易被人接受。它确保了工信部职工的利益，同时也为非工作人员创造了更多的工作。该方法不仅有利于部，将收集的头脑风暴，但关心非部工作人员。艾伦的变化遭遇了许多挫折，重要的原因是它无法在短时间内克服变革的阻力。它给员工带来了痛苦，并导致了对变革领导者的信心丧失，并承诺改革的结果。在这部艾伦的改革思想导致混乱的顾里和其他人的抵抗和艾伦应该对此负责。McCully想让部内的改变，而艾伦似乎作为改革领导者的所有特征，但毕竟艾伦是新来的没有在外交经验和公共服务。所以他的改革留给公众怀疑和质疑。

Literature Review Essay代写:改革建议

Allen’s proposal of reform threatened the jobs of workers, and it would also do harm in political field. When Allen and the leadership team was busy carrying out their reform plans, Murray McCully delivered a speech that the reform “was already ruffling diplomatic feathers”. In other words, the reform could not hold water. McCully pointed out that “dramatically changing” should be involved in the Ministry, if leaders wanted to cope with the financial stress and new strategies of business priorities. He also said that changes could have “profound implications for Ministry staff”, and giving more assignments to workers who were not in the ministry should be carried out, namely, opening some doors and windows in the ministry. People can see that the claim of McCully was much different from Allen. McCully’s ideas were much more acceptable than the latter. It makes sure the profit of ministry workers and at the same time, it created more work to the non-ministry staff. The method was not only benefiting the ministry, which would collect brainstorm, but caring about the non-ministry staff. Allen’s change met a lot of setbacks, and the important reason was that it could not overcome the resistance to change within a short time. It gave employee agony and leaded to a loss of faith in leaders of change, and it over-promised the results of the reform. The resistance of McCully and other people in the ministry thoughts Allen’s reform leaded turmoil and Allen should be blame for this. McCully wanted to make a change in the ministry, while Allen seemed to have all characteristics as a reform leader, but after all Allen was new here without experience in both foreign affairs and public service. So his reform left public with doubt and questions.