Kotter’s And Dr. Feinberg’s Management Teachings Sample Essay


John Kotter presented the “Kotter’s 8 Step Change Model” to help organizations enhance their capacity to adapt to new situations and improve their likelihood of succeeding. He outlined the eight phases for strengthening and reforming an organization’s culture, development, and relative performance clearly and concisely. Associations may avoid disappointment and become proficient in implementing change by following this development plan (Katsufrakis, 2012). As a result, organizations will never need to change the progressions again, and their chances of success will increase. Change is usually a difficult concept for any business to grasp; yet, corporate success is a foregone conclusion if this process is handled correctly (Radwan, 2020). There are several parallels and distinctions between Kotter’s and Dr. Feinberg’s teachings. One of their crucial teaching themes refers to the impossibility of organizational without changes.

Similarities and Differences in Views

Both researchers’ teachings center on the idea of change as something that must be rooted in inadequate reasons centered on the organization’s core growth strategy. Furthermore, they promote change as a necessary component of organizational growth and performance. However, they diverge on achieving short-term victories; Kotter tends to argue for long-term, sustainable victories rather than short-term, transitory victories (Katsufrakis, 2012). I feel that adding a ninth stage to Kotter’s eight-step transformation process would make it more general and sufficient. This stage would focus on evaluating change and its effects on organizational culture. A change review process is always required to identify the amount or degree of influence it has on the overall performance and progress of the company.

Biblical Perspective

Both Kotter and Dr. Feinberg are in line with the biblical scripture. For example, the book of 2 Corinthians (NLT) says, “This means that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!” (“New bodies”, n. d., 5:17). It presumes that new ideas and changes signify the completely fresh start; thus, changes can be beneficial.


In conclusion, change is rarely seen as a positive phenomenon by employees. Whatever the case may be, they are critical in implementing advancement. Following Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model and Dr. Feinberg’s teachings will help organizations implement change. The necessity of staff engagement and acceptance is stressed for the operation’s overall viability. Rather than the actual transition process, the emphasis is on preparing for and building tolerance. Adding certain stages to Kotter’s processes will be more beneficial to all enterprises.


Katsufrakis, P. (2012). Changing the culture of health care education. In Nash, D. B Health care quality: The clinician’s primer (pp. 329-335). American College of Physician Executives.

New Bodies. (n.d.) BibleGateaway. Web.

Prohibiting Legalization Of Marijuana In The US

Despite multiple attempts to define the status of marijuana in the United States, the question of its legalization remains open. Cannabis is still illegal in some states and at the federal level, and people want to understand if its medical benefits could prevail over its evident harms. The purpose of this paper is to define the conditions under which legalization of marijuana should be prohibited regardless of its potential help. Uncontrolled dependence and the inability to predict the growth of the black market are the key points for consideration. Today, ballot measures and legalization may not be enough to introduce and allow marijuana usage due to its addictive nature and economic aspects.

Cannabis provokes multiple discussions in many spheres of modern business. Although 19 American states have already legalized marijuana for recreational purposes, the number of states with doubts is evident (Kersey). Specific reimbursement measures are required today, and social concerns continue growing. To support their positions about the benefits of marijuana, people use it for medical purposes. It reduces pain, manages anxiety, and controls nausea and vomiting (Hall 282). Patients might feel relaxation and increased sociability, which leads to faster recovery. However, marijuana legalization debates are hard to stop and come to the same conclusion. In addition to all its potential health benefits, economic costs and a lack of successful experience cannot be ignored. There were strong reasons to prohibit cannabis in most countries during the last century (Hall 285). Experts underline that legalized marijuana could have adverse outcomes on worker compensation and intoxication issues (Kersey). People need to control its usage by any possible things and focus on creating new treatment methods.

In general, marijuana legalization is a controversial social and political issue. There are many arguments to support (pain relief and treatment) and oppose (the black market and dependence) its promotion in the United States. Until the government cannot find a solution, the medical and healthcare spheres should work hard to find out something to replace cannabis with minimal shortages. Modern scientists continue discovering new forms of cures and increase hope for marijuana analogs that are safe for people to be introduced soon and close the question of marijuana legalization.

Works Cited

Hall, Wayne. “The Costs and Benefits of Cannabis Control Policies.” Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 3, 2020, pp. 281-287.

Kersey, Laura. “2021 Marijuana Legalization Update: Five Things You Need to Know.” NCCI, 2021.

Case Study Of Starbucks Employees

I believe the National Labor Relations Board was absolutely right in siding with employees in the issue of wearing union pins at workplace, since Starbucks went too far in its desire to control employees. Firstly, the ban to wear more than a single union pin has nothing to do with safety rules and regulations at workplace, but can be seen a measure taken to diminish union support among the workers (Morran, 2012). Secondly, the associate ban to speak about union matters at work disregards the basic human right of freedom of speech, proclaimed by the Constitution. Since employees are allowed to speak about other matters, conversation about the union should not be banned. Thirdly, companies should collaborate with unions to create comfortable workplace for employees, so that they could do their best at workplace. Starbucks does not seem to be interested in the well-being of its employees since instead of trying to engage in its workers’ problem resolution it chooses a way of bans and confrontation.

However, I believe the Board’s ruling not to reinstate an employee who shouted threats and insults at the manager is justified. Since there were no reasonable grounds for this kind of behavior, such as violations of work agreements by the employer, the employee’s outburst can be considered inappropriate (Judge says Starbucks violated workers’ rights at NYC Stores, 2009). The dismissal seems to be the right price to pay for such a misconduct. The issue whether an employee can be sacked for obscene words has recently caused many debates with federal courts issuing different rulings in similar cases (DeMaria, 2017). This raises the issue of how much leeway should an employer have in setting up standards so as to uphold the company’s corporate culture without risks of being sued by the union.

The fact is that if the rules are harsh the employees would find it difficult to stick to them, while if the rules are lax, corporate culture may be compromised. I think the employers must aim to seek the golden middle, understanding that employees spend at work the best part of their day and would not welcome severe restrictions. However, the minimum rules that allow to uphold corporate culture should be determined and followed by everyone.

I firmly approve of the Board’s decision to reinstate two workers fired because of their union support. I think this decision does not limit Starbucks in the management of its stores, but provides protection and support for workers engaged in union activities. Union activities can not be a reasonable ground for dismissal since unions are created to uphold workers’ rights and privileges.

The attempt to fire union activists casts a shadow over Starbucks company, since it may be seen as unwilling to create comfortable working conditions for its employees. The management of stores does not necessitate such drastic measures as limiting union activities or imposing bans on freedom of speech and, in general, has nothing to do with the employees’ personal believes and feelings. Among other things, effective management creates friendly working environment and that is exactly what Starbucks has so far failed to do. In fact, by imposing bans on union symbolics the company pushes employees to more fully embrace union activities (NLRB orders Starbucks to reinstate two workers, but not a third, 2010). Looking at the example of Starbucks, one can see that striking a balance between corporate culture and comfortable working environment is no easy matter and the National Labor Relations Board must constantly review its standards to issue appropriate rulings in the matter.


DeMaria, A. T. (2017). Contrasting rulings shed light on when an employer may or may not fire an employee for obscenities. Management Report for Nonunion Organizations, 40(7), 3-4. Web.

Judge says Starbucks violated workers’ rights at NYC Stores. (2009). Management Report.

Morran, C. (2012) Court sides with Starbucks in dispute over labor union pins. Consumerist. Web.

NLRB orders Starbucks to reinstate two workers, but not a third. (2010). Management Report.

error: Content is protected !!