+1 (417) 242-6748    support@nursingessaygurus.com

RELIABLE PARTNER IN
NURSING ESSAY WRITING

Get your project completed by MDs and PhDs

Critiquing a Collaborative Case Study

Critiquing a Collaborative Case Study

ORDER CUSTOM, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS ON Critiquing a Collaborative Case Study

I AM UPLOADING 2 FILES TO CHOOSE FROM FOR TUTORING ME, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF MY UPLOADING WORKED)

 

Before beginning, review the Critiquing a Collaborative Case Study Scoring Guide.

In the Quelch and Laidler case studies, the authors present several case studies of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Choose one of the following to serve as the focus of your assignment.

  • Amnesty International.
  • UNICEF.

YOUR ASSIGNMENT

You are a senior manager responsible for leading organizational changes. As part of your job, you will prepare a memorandum critiquing your organization. Your critique must address the following questions:

  1. What are the theories and principles of negotiation suitable for the organization in its relation to collaborators and competitors?
  2. Which theories and models of governance has the organization implemented, and how appropriate are they to the mission of the organization?
  3. Organizations use communication to assist the process of branding. Which methods of communication are employed, and what is your estimate of the success of those methods in terms of branding?
  4. How well has the organization defined its service population, and has it successfully integrated that service population in regards to fulfilling its mission?
  5. What are your recommendations for organizational changes based on your critique?

Write a 2,000-word analysis and critique of your chosen case. In addition, create a list of references cited using APA standards.

or the exclusive use of L. Beal, 2016. 9-504-024 AUGUST 7, 2003 JOHN QUELCH NATHALIE LAIDLER Amnesty International In January 2003, Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International, reflected on the organization’s expanding mission, recent organizational changes, and increased competition. “We are starting to take a serious look at brand management,” she said. “We need to clearly define who we are and then communicate this through the Amnesty brand.” Amnesty International (AI) was a worldwide campaigning movement that worked to promote internationally recognized human rights. It was impartial and independent of any government, political persuasion, or religious creed and, in 2002, had close to 1.5 million members and supporters in over 140 countries and total gross income of over £90 million.1 Activities were largely funded through public subscriptions and donations. An International Secretariat was based in London and employed over 350 staff members and 100 volunteers from over 50 countries around the world. History AI was founded in 1961 by British lawyer Peter Benenson. Upon learning about a group of students in Portugal who were arrested for raising a toast to “freedom” in a public restaurant, Benenson launched a one-year campaign called Appeal for Amnesty in the London Observer. The Appeal for Amnesty called for the release of all people imprisoned because of the peaceful expression of their beliefs, politics, race, religion, color, or national origin. Benenson’s plan was to encourage people to write letters to government officials in countries that held prisoners of conscience2 calling for their release. The campaign grew and spread to other countries and, within a year, AI was formed. AI’s mandate was based on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) established in 1948, which underscored the principle that people have fundamental rights that transcend national, cultural, religious, or ideological boundaries. Early activities by members organized into prisoner-adoption groups focused on letter writing on behalf of specific prisoners of 1 $1US = £0.65 on average in 2002. 2 Prisoners of conscience are defined by AI as people imprisoned solely because of their political or religious beliefs, gender, or racial or ethnic origin who have neither used nor advocated violence. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Professor John Quelch and Research Associate Nathalie Laidler prepared this case. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management. Copyright © 2003 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the permission of Harvard Business School. This document is authorized for use only by Lisa Beal in NPM6108-3 taught by Tamicka Robinson, Capella University from July 2016 to January 2017.Critiquing a Collaborative Case Study

For the exclusive use of L. Beal, 2016. 504-024 Amnesty International conscience. Members often developed a bond with individual prisoners, whose names, cases, and families they grew to know. In this way, AI focused on individuals, not countries or political systems. During the 1960s, AI members became more active at the local level in publicity, fund-raising, and educational activities. In the late 1960s, in order to maintain impartiality and protect human rights activists themselves, AI adopted the rule that people in the organization were to work only on cases outside their own countries. In the mid-1980s, a number of musicians and artists adopted AI as a special cause, giving concerts and tours, the profits from which they donated back to the organization. This brought tremendous growth and visibility to AI, whose budget increased dramatically. In 1997, AI was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, AI developed its research capability at the International Secretariat and devoted resources to obtaining accurate information about prisoners of conscience. Khan expanded on AI’s evolution: In the 1960s, AI was just a social movement, but in the 1970s and 1980s, a bureaucracy started to evolve with the International Secretariat at its center, and the organization expanded its capabilities and resources. As it grew, institutions and rules were developed concerning policy, activities, decision making, and funding, with great emphasis being placed on internal democracy. By the early 1990s, AI’s internal structure was marked by several large country sections, a centralized International Secretariat, and a large number of smaller sections and structures, primarily in the global South, creating different power dynamics within AI. Several of the larger sections had significant capacity and resources and were eager for greater freedom to carry out their activities. They were getting frustrated with the inability of the International Secretariat to meet their demands as speedily and effectively as they wished. Demands for internal change were matched by enormous changes in the human rights world around AI. Prior to 1990, AI focused on governments and prisoners of conscience, but as the political world changed, AI started to expand its activities both in terms of the kinds of people suffering from human rights abuses and the entities responsible for these human rights transgressions. Turning 40—AI’s Mid-Life Crisis3 In August 2001, AI drafted an internal document called the State of the Movement 2001 Report that concluded: th On its 40 anniversary, AI finds itself at a critical juncture. The international political, economic, and social landscape has significantly changed.Critiquing a Collaborative Case Study

The focus of the global human rights movement has expanded from civil and political rights (CPR) to also encompass violations of economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR), and whereas AI was among the first human rights organizations in 1961, there has been an explosion in the number, strength, and diversity of NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) addressing human rights issues. While AI’s reputation as a leading international human rights organization remains intact, the overall relevance and effectiveness of the organization have become increasingly questioned. AI is going through a critical transition period. Pierre Sané, AI’s then-secretary general, believed that AI’s vision and mandate had to be clarified and that the “mid-life crisis” that the organization was experiencing would enable AI to reassess priorities and develop a more relevant purpose and vision. 3 Much of this section is based on the 25th International Council Meeting Circular 36, July 2001. 2 This document is authorized for use only by Lisa Beal in NPM6108-3 taught by Tamicka Robinson, Capella University from July 2016 to January 2017. For the exclusive use of L. Beal, 2016. Amnesty International 504-024 A changing global environment The end of the Cold War, the declining role of the nation state, the increase in conflicts, and the multiple effects of globalization had created a new context for AI. There had been, during the 1990s, an increase in the influence of violent nonstate actors perpetrating human rights violations, and the focus of the human rights community had expanded from political and civil rights to economic, social, and cultural rights. The number of NGOs focusing on human rights had proliferated yet, in many countries, the relationships between NGOs and states had evolved from being confrontational to cooperative. Collaboration among NGOs was also on the rise. Competition for resources, members, and public support had also escalated. The communications revolution and the growth of the Internet had dramatically changed the way human rights activists mobilized support, collected and disseminated information, and launched protests. AI’s key challenges in 2001 A key question was whether AI was still a leading agent of change in the human rights movement. Many people within the organization and outside it felt that, since the 1990s, AI had lost its edge and failed to respond quickly enough. 1. Shift in mandate In the early 1990s, the international human rights movement began to embrace economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) in addition to the traditional civil and political rights (CPR). AI, however, continued to focus primarily on CPR. While some members criticized the organization for responding only to one group of rights, arguing that this restricted AI’s collaboration with local NGOs and made the organization appear less relevant, other members believed that AI’s strength lay in the organization’s focus on a core area of rights and that such focus resulted in greater coherence and effectiveness. 2. Work on own country By 2001, the restriction on members against working on cases within their own country had become a point of great contention. Some members argued that the restriction was no longer relevant and prevented the organization’s being perceived as relevant locally; others believed that it maintained AI’s impartiality and international solidarity. One of AI’s most criticized actions had been to campaign for better conditions for imprisoned members of the Baader-Meinhoff Gang, a left-wing political terrorist group active in Germany in the 1970s.Critiquing a Collaborative Case Study

German AI members became deeply involved and pressed the International Secretariat to investigate charges of torture and human rights abuses against members of the Baader-Meinhoff Gang. Jonathan Power, author and journalist, concluded: Amnesty came dangerously near to being used by a group that had no sympathy for the values Amnesty stood for and which sought to overthrow the kind of Western European democracy that allowed Amnesty to flourish. Looking back, the Baader-Meinhoff effort was not the organization’s finest hour. Against the better judgment of some of its members, Amnesty allowed the German national group to involve it more deeply than the case deserved.4 3. Adapting research and campaigning During the 1990s, AI had increased its participation in local and regional human rights networking and collective campaigning. Meanwhile, changes in communication had made it easier to launch global campaigns and promote electronic debate. Some members, however, were concerned that, although AI was known for the quality of its information, it did not always disseminate it quickly enough. In addition, AI’s centralized campaigning approach was believed by some to limit the flexibility of individual 4 This section based on the book by Jonathan Power, Like Water on Stone (New York: Penguin Press, 2001).

3 This document is authorized for use only by Lisa Beal in NPM6108-3 taught by Tamicka Robinson, Capella University from July 2016 to January 2017. For the exclusive use of L. Beal, 2016. 504-024 Amnesty International national sections, and the campaigns themselves, always developed through consensus, were thought to be sometimes vague and lacking in impact. 4. Streamlining decision making Given the democratic nature of AI (described in detail below), the organization recognized that its slow decision-making processes, involving broad participation and consensus building, were costly in terms of organizational effectiveness. 5. Membership development In 2001, AI’s membership was heavily skewed, with almost a million members in Western Europe, a little under 400,000 in North America, and only a small proportion in the global South and East. Many of the smaller national sections felt that they needed additional support, training, and capacity building. Others pointed out that many of the smaller national sections, which were dependent on international funding, were required to submit regular reports, but the larger self-sufficient sections were not. As a result, no standardized information was available on the entire organization. Yet others worried that the number of national sections depending on funding from the International Secretariat was increasing and that AI had not managed to raise many funds in countries where other NGOs had apparently succeeded.

Finally, there was a general concern that AI should strive to promote a more consistent and universal brand, although there was, as yet, no clear definition of what the AI brand represented. Mission and Objectives In August 2001, AI’s International Council amended its statute to include a new vision statement, mission statement, and set of core values. ! AI’s vision was of a world in which “every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.” ! AI’s mission was to “undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, promote freedom of conscience and expression, and uphold freedom from discrimination.” ! AI’s core values included the principles of international solidarity, effective action for the individual victim, universality and indivisibility of human rights, impartiality and independence, and democracy and mutual respect. Khan explained: The essence of the Amnesty brand lies in its core values. The notion of international solidarity stems from the fact that AI is all about people in one part of the world working on behalf of other people in the world. Shining the light on individual cases has been our trademark, and we want to keep it that way. We work hard to maintain impartiality—for example, in the Middle East conflict we report on human rights abuses on both sides—and our organizational structure is highly democratic. AI’s stated objectives were to address governments, intergovernmental organizations, armed political groups, companies, and other nonstate players. It sought to disclose human rights abuses accurately and quickly, and it systematically and impartially researched the facts of individual cases and patterns of human rights abuses. The findings were publicized, and members, supporters, and staff mobilized public pressure to stop the abuses. AI urged all governments to observe the rule of law and ratify and implement human rights standards and carried out a wide range of educational activities. 4 This document is authorized for use only by Lisa Beal in NPM6108-3 taught by Tamicka Robinson, Capella University from July 2016 to January 2017. For the exclusive use of L. Beal, 2016.Critiquing a Collaborative Case Study

Amnesty International 504-024 Activities AI cooperated with other NGOs, the United Nations, and regional intergovernmental organizations to address human rights abuses. AI had developed a core strength in researching abuses, and in 2002, AI delegates visited dozen of countries to meet victims of human rights violations, observe trials, and interview local human rights activists and officials. The organization then communicated the results of its research, organized human rights education and awarenessraising programs, and sought to mobilize public opinion through specific campaigns.

AI was often cited, by journalists and third parties, as a credible source of information on issues of human rights abuses. In most cases this publicity was beneficial to AI’s goal of raising awareness, but in specific situations, AI had had to request that a third party not reference the organization’s work. In 1990, for example, during his efforts to build a coalition against Saddam Hussein prior to the Gulf War, President George Bush quoted AI reports on Iraq. At the same time, U.S. authorities ignored AI’s critique of the role of the CIA in torture in Guatemala or the use of capital punishment in the United States. AI felt that its brand name was being used in a one-sided, high-profile diplomatic war that threatened international human rights efforts and requested that U.S. officials stop quoting from the organization’s reports.5 AI members, supporters, and staff around the world mobilized public opinion to pressure governments and other players with influence to stop human rights abuses. Activities ranged from public demonstrations to letter writing, from human education programs to fund-raising concerts, from approaches to local authorities to lobbying intergovernmental organizations, and from targeted appeals on behalf of a single individual to global campaigns on a specific country or issue. “Letter writing has been our core strength in the past,” explained Khan, “and our commonest form of action. Over the years, AI members have written millions of letters on behalf of more than 44,000 prisoners of conscience; about 50% of the cases were eventually resolved.Critiquing a Collaborative Case Study

This is changing now,” she added, “and we are shifting to e-campaigning, where text messages are easy to access on our Web site and can be sent on via e-mail.” In addition, Khan believed that members were increasingly looking for more visible ways to campaign. “Younger members want to express their views more forcefully,” explained Khan. “In Poland for example, Amnesty organized a human chain going from the Israeli Embassy to the Palestine Mission.” Each year, AI members around the world joined forces on one global campaign to achieve change. In 2002, this was the Campaign Against Torture, which fought against torture and ill-treatment of women, children, ethnic minorities, and lesbians, gays, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. During 2002, four countries ratified the U.N. Convention against Torture, and a number of government leaders and officials made commitments to adopt legislation to prevent torture in their countries. (See Exhibit 1 for an excerpt from AI’s “Justice for Torture Victims” briefing, a publication that appeared in April 2002.) In 2002, AI worked on behalf of 2,813 named victims of human rights violations. AI’s Urgent Action Network, made up of 80,000 volunteers in 85 countries, initiated 408 actions on behalf of people in 81 countries who were either at risk or had suffered human rights violations including torture, disappearance, the death penalty, death in custody, or forcible return to countries where they would be in danger of human rights abuses. Of these urgent actions, 117 resulted in good news about the case. (See Exhibit 2 for a direct-mail piece from Amnesty International USA describing the Urgent Action Network.) 5 Anecdote based on the book by Power, Like Water on Stone (New York: Penguin Press, 2001). 5 This document is authorized for use only by Lisa Beal in NPM6108-3 taught by Tamicka Robinson, Capella University from July 2016 to January 2017.Critiquing a Collaborative Case Study

For the exclusive use of L. Beal, 2016. 504-024 Amnesty International AI’s Web site contained over 20,000 files and was visited by 10,000 people a day from all over the world. It featured a library of reports, press releases, and information on the latest campaigns, appeals for action, and online petitions. In 2002, more than 120,000 e-mails were sent to various governments as part of AI’s Campaign Against Torture. AI also worked through a number of specialist networks to further its objectives. (See Exhibit 3 for a description of AI’s specialist networks.) Expanding the scope of activities Throughout the 1990s, AI had slowly expanded the scope of its activities from prisoners of conscience to include human rights abuses against refugees, women, children, ethnic minorities, and LGBT people. In addition, the organization broadened its target audience from governments to include inter …