Political Science

3. How can citizens become more informed about the realities of government performance
Analyzing this question, it can be argued that part of the democratic system involves having the capacity to create aspects of monitoring of each branch of the government. Seeing this, available information can be gained from existing reports about each departments ability to function according to its mandated objectives and goals. At the same time, there must be an apparent effort by these government entities to provide their corresponding performance and related issues that need to be addressed.

I do believe that with the advancement of todays technology, the Internet has provided new directives for the government to provide relevant information towards citizens who desire to view such documentation. Not only does this increase the aspect of responsible and accountable reporting, the public also becomes aware of the new practices and trends surrounding a particular organization or division. In turn, this becomes rather essential in highlighting what aspects can be changed.

On the other hand, involvement in government watchdog organizations is also another effective way to become aware of how the government performs. Here, these groups have the appropriate machinery and mechanisms to provide appropriate directions in enhancing the capacity to understand and determine how governmental bodies are treating particular issues that may seem relevant to the public. It may involve proper planning, implementation, and documentation of these agendas accordingly.

To further seek improvement, citizens must then collaborate with such organizations in both lobbying and pointing out issues that need to be addressed. At the same time, opening up areas for communication and interaction are also viable options to consider. Thus, there are different formal aspects within the system that can be implemented to harness performance.

4. Constructing a better FAA management system and addressing the case of ValuJet
Contemplating on the capacity of FAA management system on the part of addressing disaster, it can be argued that the process needs to correspond with the trends and shortcomings in the past and try to recreate new guidelines and standards for safety. Despite the initial attempts towards consolidating new technologies within the realm of air travel, constructing an FAA management system must not overlap these trends accordingly but rather provide new inputs in ensuring that each action initiated abides with up-to-date safety protocols.

Given these recommendations, I do believe that it is necessary for the FAA to consolidate and continuously develop its existing standards and protocols towards air travel. In this process, it involves providing new addendum towards new technical developments and principles in a particular aspect of aviation. At the same time, major changes would also have to be implemented to ensure better capacity to address the changing dynamics and flaws with the previous mandates.

Lastly, there must also be infused accountability in every department starting from department heads towards inspectors. In here, their actions must coincide with what is mandated by standards and protocols. Since these have been designed to create features for enhancing safety, it must be the primary option in determining the validity of this claim among airline companies. Such management system can ensure that the FAA corresponds to what it truly envisions and promotes.

In response to the arguments made by the author, the idea that accidents do happen coincides with the associated risk concerning air travel. Despite the adherence that accidents do indeed happen, it is not a matter of accepting these things as it is. Rather, it corresponds to recognizing each ones responsibility associated with the complex process of aviation. In essence, it is the capacity to provide safety towards aviation and how actors respond is what truly matters. Thus, it is the continuous recognition of these risks and the commitment that these should not happen by providing protocols and changes is what matters in this field.

5. The Lessons of ValuJet 592 and Rainey  Steinbauer argument
Analyzing the case from the Lessons of ValuJet 592, it can be argued that it greatly contradicts the notion of Rainey and Steinbauer concerning the effectiveness of governmental organizations. In particular, it corresponds to the idea that despite the initial attempts of the FAA to address the needs of the airline industry and facilitate better outcomes for safety, there are still inconsistencies present that needs to be administered and tackled accordingly.

Likewise, the case also highlight the complexity and relative challenge that organization face in handling issues that is beyond their usual control. Despite the capacity of the FAA to provide adequate standards for implementation, it remains to be seen that the aviation sector is a complex process comprised of different dynamics. The process of pursuing effectiveness and leadership becomes constrained by these intricacies in the overall design of the system.

On the other hand, the case of ValuJet can also be seen as an important dynamic to analyze the capacity of government organizations to address a different model in enhancing effectiveness. Given the aviation industrys relatively complex and multi-faceted perspectives, the challenge now becomes crucial to implement policy and leadership that is effective and rooted in the idea of safety. Thus, this corresponding process then resonates towards finding the appropriate ground wherein government institutions and organizations such as the FAA can actively administer responsible and accountable provisions of its prescribed goals and objectives accordingly.

6. Dian Vaughns normalization of deviance and how organizations should act
Looking at the principle of normalization of deviance by Dian Vaughn, it seeks to highlight how industries and government agencies put little regard to the impact of the case such as ValuJet 592 and puts into consideration the reasoning that accidents such as like that cannot be prevented. In essence, it tries to provide justification that the lapse in the application of safety standards and protocols were relatively complex and would not have been prevented due to the capacity of all unexpected factors to be manifested.

With this analogy, not only does it undermine the process of safety but also creates a specific type of framework that is below expected standards. In particular, it signifies adherence to what is only available and seeking to provide validation for such course of action. Such aspects then becomes the normalization of deviance and highlights how important elements are taken for granted or degraded into a certain aspect that can be justified or reasoned out.

In order to prevent such situations from happening, organizations need not to compromise in what it seeks to provide or its purpose of existence. For example, the FAA need not to adjust to the clamors of airline industries but rather set the bar for what safety should be within the airline industries. Here, consolidating inputs means that there must be an active leadership and application of standards and protocols to its full extent. Similarly, methods of application must continuously be analyzed if it still fits to the overall values and principles that the organization seeks to address.

Moreover, given the associated complexities associated with organizational dynamics, it must treat aspects of deviance as destructive to the overall value and existence of organizations. By allowing such mindset to emanate, it can help consolidate and collaborate measures towards learning from these setbacks and finding new means to uplift the level of service administered among groups and particular industries.