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

Proactive versus reactive change efforts

In organizational change, there is a debate in the literature about the benefits of proactive versus reactive change efforts. Your instructor will assign you one side of the debate, reactive change. While both positions in each argument are important, your task is to state why you believe your side reactive change is more important than the other position and support the argument with at least three references from

Sample Solution

authority which in turn would be a restriction of decisions these individuals are entitled to make. In addition, regarding the restrictions placed by the government in the past, an example would be, when it comes to the restriction on advertisements, the liberalist theory would argue that businesses should have the right to advertise their products the way they want to in other to grow their businesses. The liberty to do that should not be taken from them because of the fact that people cannot properly control themselves and limit their consumption of certain beverages. Children cannot necessarily make rationale choices, hence the reason they have guardians who are able to make these decisions for them. Parents should be encouraged to step up their game and help direct their under aged children in making right decisions instead of the liberty of these companies to advertise their products how they want being taken from them. Response to Opponent’s Critisism In response to the critique, paternalism would give the parent or guardian the power to decide on whether to allow their under 16 child take caffeinated energy drink or not (Holland, 2014). However, it is understandable that this does interfere with the child’s ability to make their own autonomous decision on whether they want to take these beverages or not because their legal guardian has the final decision to make for them. For example, due to the negative health impacts of CEDs, it is in the parent’s best interest to ensure that the under 16-year-old child does not take these beverages. Parents have the right to make decisions regarding the health of the under 16 children, but in the case where the child wants to take these beverages. This is when paternalism comes in because the parent has the right to protect their child’s health and make decisions in that regard, especially due to the fact that the child is young and is not mature enough to make important decisions especially regarding their health. Therefore, the parent would use paternalistic approach to coerce the under 16 children into not taking caffeinated energy drinks. Using the Deontologist theory which is a non- consequentialist ethical theory that believes that an action is considered morally good based on the action itself and its characteristics and not necessarily because the action is good (Holland, 2015). This principle insists on the idea that some actions must be acted on or avoided, and a person must fulfil their moral obligation despite the outcome of that action (Holland, 2015). Regarding the morality behind sale of Caffeinated Energy Drinks to persons under the age of 16, as long as efforts are being made and the goal is to minimize sale of CEDs and reduce rate of obesity and other health conditions associated with consumption of these beverages. The moral duty is being fulfilled by curbing the potential consequences of persons under 16 consumption of the beverages maybe. Therefore, this action does not cause any form of harm to the persons involved and at the same time they are not treated as a means to an end. For instance, in the case of a mother and her child that is under 16 years of age, it would in the mother’s best interest and also it is her duty to protect her child from actions that could cause harm. In this situation, these age group may not have fully developed the cognitive ability to make healthy and unhealthy choices regarding the consumption of these beverages. Therefore, in this situation, it is the duty of the parent to provide her child with the required knowledge to make healthy and informed choices regarding consumption of caffeinated energy drinks, which in turn would ultimately be protecting her child from the risk of having chronic diseases associated with these beverages both presently and in the future. Deontological perspective is concerned with fulfilling the obligations and doing what is right, therefore, it could also be argued that the public health policymakers’ moral obligation is to regulate and limit harmful CEDs consumption for persons under the age of 16 (Veerapen, 2020).

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