Criminal Justice Questions

Question 1

The top-down and bottom-up approaches are the primary approaches for conceiving a vision. A top-down approach is mostly centralized at the executive business level, where top stakeholders manage the entire planning process (Quain, 2018). This includes articulating short and long-term goals that align with the business’s sustainable mission. Once the plans and goals are integrated into a vision statement, the executive team shares it with the employees from the higher to lower-level ranks. Consequently, the top-down method works better when the organizational structure is hierarchical, and most decision-making is done at the executive level. On the other hand, a bottom-up approach incorporates all employees into the vision planning process by analyzing proposed ideas and selecting the most favorable for the business model. Google is an example of a successful company that uses this strategy to streamline its vision and mission statement with sustainable business goals (Quain, 2018). Therefore, the bottom-up vision planning takes advantage of the employees’ specialized skills and talents, encouraging them to communicate ideas with middle managers who then report to the executive. The two approaches differ in how they are implemented alongside the employee involvement level required to articulate the organization’s vision.

The top-down framework has several key advantages and drawbacks. Its primary advantage involves the stability and direction it offers when integrating the vision into company operations. Given that the vision is developed centrally and communicated through a transparent chain of command, employees are only required to follow the provided steps (Quain, 2018). Each organizational member is asked to integrate the vision communicated by top executives signifying that everyone should move in one direction. Moreover, the framework is less time-consuming and minimizes workplace politics that often arise during vision planning. Also, the framework requires fewer financial resources. However, the top-down method ignores the favorable input from employees whose creativity may advance the company’s vision. As a result, ideas that could potentially boost productivity do not reach higher-level stakeholders with the power to integrate them into the vision. Consequently, executives may implement a vision that is not practical for employees creating a toxic environment.

Whereas the bottom up-approach utilizes employee input, it is also more complex and challenging to formulate. The expertise and creativity shared by the employees can streamline the vision and align its sustainability with long-term business objectives. Employees at all levels are in the best position to understand barriers to success and can therefore offer practical solutions (Quain, 2018). Moreover, once the vision is accepted and understood by all level workers, it is more likely to be implemented successfully. Nonetheless, the bottom-up method is time-consuming, especially in larger-sized corporations, and requires more resources. It is also more complex as middle managers must sort through the ideas presented to determine viable ones.

Arguably, the bottom-up framework is the most effective as it offers an inclusive vision that is more sustainable and survivable in the long term. It also boosts collective morale and encourages each member to participate in integrating the vision. Each approach depends significantly on the members involved, but the bottom-up framework promises better results.

Question 2

            Successful outcomes require statements that outline the intentions of a company or individual in their journey to growth and more remarkable accomplishments. Goals can therefore be defined as plans envisioned by an individual or an organization. For instance, the criminal justice system’s goals include; the rehabilitation of offenders, compensation, and restitution of victims, among others (Davis, 2021). Ultimately, goals in the criminal justice system aim to provide a long-term safe, fair, and secure environment.

            The invisible aspects of achievement are made possible by the setting of goals. Goals are essential in various factors, including providing focus, direction, motivation, supervision, progression, and clarity (SeeKen, 2017). Goals envision a target of achievement hence allows the target setter to focus on the priorities to their desired ending. For instance, a blindfolded individual asked to shoot a target cannot achieve a successful result. Goals remove a blindfold enabling the setter to achieve a specified outcome. Moreover, goals provide direction to a successful outcome. They allow the goal setter to define their exact needs and future aspirations, reducing the risk of confusing events. Goals further motivate one to forge ahead and minimize redundancy and procrastination. A goal-setter outlines a list of priorities that keeps them motivated on their last result (SeeKen, 2017). Therefore,  achievement of the expected outcome becomes a possibility.

            Goal setting can also be described as a means to a better life. Goals provide clarity by outlining purpose. Having a clear perception of the expected outcome ensures that even if one changes their direction to achieve the goal, they focus on it. Furthermore, goals provide a supervision angle for progress achieved. Goals enable the setter to maintain ground in their journey by closely examining their distance to their goals. Therefore, the setter can analyze their cause of action and the changes required to achieve their dreams (SeeKen, 2017). Therefore, goals are expected to materialize, and their setting provides an actual implementation outline to their fulfillment.

            Visions and goals can be described as the means to an expected end. The two are interdependent, and one cannot function without the other. Goals act as milestones to the achievement of a vision (Bhattacharya, 2016). However, the two terms have differences that set them apart. Whereas goals provide the means to an end, a vision defines the future. For instance, if an organization wishes to infiltrate the global market, it has to set goals at every level to get to the vision. Moreover, goals are a test of capabilities and perseverance, and they are short-term. Visions, however, stand the test of time, are limitless, and can stretch as far as the setter’s imagination. Furthermore, goals require action, unlike visions (Bhattacharya, 2016). For instance, a person may formulate a vision, but the vision is just an end, and the means which are the goals require significant effort to achieve the outcome.

Additionally, goals are more realistic, and one can envision a result, unlike a vision which sounds like an impossible imagination that may outstretch time (Bhattacharya, 2016). For instance, Martin Luther’s quotes on his vision for a perfect world such as ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character (Hartvigsen, 2013).’ Goals and visions hence have notable differences but are interdependent in achieving required outcomes.