No More Worries!

image Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay

Paper Formatting

  • Double or single-spaced
  • 1-inch margin
  • 12 Font Arial or Times New Roman
  • 300 words per page

No Lateness!

image Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay

Our Guarantees


  • Free Unlimited revisions
  • Guaranteed Privacy
  • Money Return guarantee
  • Plagiarism Free Writing

Critical Organisational Analysis

research the organisation to identify practices/behaviours that are problematic and require investigation as well as recommendations to attend to the issues identified. You will write from either the symbolic or contemporary theoretical perspectives, using Organisation Theory from the most relevant theme taught in the module. The perspective needs to be carried through the assignment and present through every section. The themes that we will cover in the module are: o Structure and Agency o Identity o Culture o Organisational Learning, Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Management o Aesthetics, Performance and Narrative o Power and Control o Gender Guidance for writing the essay • Introduction to the essay and rationale for the choice of o​‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‍​rganisation [10%] • A brief section justifying your choice of theoretical perspective: either the symbolic or the contemporary and how this impacts on your writing approach [20%] • A critical literature review on the one theme that you consider to have the greatest importance for that organisation, using either the symbolic or the contemporary theoretical perspective as your context [20%] • Critical evaluation of the practices/behaviours of the case organisation in relation to the selected theme through critical application of the reviewed theories [30%] • Conclusions [10%] • Reference list: Cite no fewer than 5 contemporary academic journal articles that are discussed in the essay. You should also cite additional references from books, textbooks, credible news outlets and professional j​‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‍​ournals [10%]

Sample Solution

nds of the all-loving and all-powerful are not arbitrary or in any way like a tyrant but the problem is how one explains this when there is no criteria by which to judge him, since all his commands are good. Liebniz argued that in saying things are not good by any rule of goodness, but simply by God’s will, “one destroys all the love of God and all his glory”. Indeed, praising God and his actions seems a hollow concept if he would be equally praiseworthy for doing the opposite. Thus “this opinion would hardly distinguish God from the devil”, as God’s goodness is dismissed, making it impossible to explain the difference between an omnibenevolent God and an omnipotent sadist. As Lewis puts it, “if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the ‘righteous Lord’”. The idea is that what makes God good is his omniscience and that what he wills is well-considered and prudent, but something cannot be prudent if there are no values on which to decide what to command, and therefore God’s commands are necessarily arbitrary. An attitude towards God which insists on his following because that is what we ‘ought’ to do, would seem in the way Kant insisted to be making morality prior to God. Yet, the proponent of this second horn, that God commands what is good, holds a position that seems similarly tenuous. The central problem with this approach is that by limiting what God can command to what is already good, one places a restriction on God’s power, which contradicts his omnipotence. A defence of such a proposition might broadly resemble this: moral truths are necessarily true, not being able to do the logically impossible is no restriction of power, no less than being able to make a bachelor a married man is. Under this objectivist framework, one argues that “moral judgements such as that an action x is a right action or that it is morally better than y, or that actions of type A are never morally good, are statements which are true or false”4 (4 The Coherence of Theism, R. Swinburne, Chapter 11, p. 207.). Indeed, that is not to say that there are no times when two choices are morally level, merely that sometimes this is not the case- some lifestyles are indeed morally better or worse than others. Thus statements affirming such an action have a truth value. By extension, “an omniscient person […] will know of any action, the characteristics of which are fully set out (e.g. that it is done by a person of such-and-such a kind in such-and-such circumstances), whether or not that action is morally good or bad”5 (ibid., p. 208). Thus God will necessarily do those actions he sees as good and avoid those which are bad and in doing so will still be omnipotent. His unflinching commitment to moral law can best be seen when we imagine the opposite. A God who “does not care to support with his will the moral principles that we believe are true” thus either “opposes some of them, or does not care enough about some of them to act on them”6 (‘Moral Arguments for Theistic Belief’, R. Adams, Part 4.). Indeed, as Adams explains, “if we really believed there is a God like that, who understands so much and yet disregards some or all of our moral principles, it would be extremely difficult for us to continue to regard those principles with the respect that we believe is due them”7 (ibid). Given we believe that we ought to pay them respect, there is a g

Price Calculator

Single spaced
approx 275 words per page
Total Cost:

12% Discount


  • Research Paper Writing
  • Essay Writing
  • Dissertation Writing
  • Thesis Writing

Why Choose Us


  • Money Return guarantee
  • Guaranteed Privacy
  • Written by Professionals
  • Paper Written from Scratch
  • Timely Deliveries
  • Free Amendments