Alternatives
Consequentialism or utilitarianism which is one of the most influential normative ethical views holds that the consequence of actions affects their moral value. Whether an act is morally right or wrong depends entirely on the consequences of the action or practice. It is the good or evil that the act produces, not the act itself, that determines the act as right or wrong. Actions are right if they produce happiness or prevent suffering, and wrong if they prevent happiness or produce suffering. Ethical egoism and ethical altruism, both of which are teleological or consequentialist theories, assume that an act should be judged solely on how good or bad the consequences are for the actor or for others, respectively. Utilitarianism combines both ethical egoism and ethical altruism. Utilitarians differ as to the nature of the good or ultimate utility by which the effects of the alternative actions are to be evaluated. There is wide variation as to the appropriate standard: happiness, peoples’ welfare, friendship, knowledge, courage, or the promotion of nearly any value. According to act utilitarians, an action is right if it produces consequences that are better than those of the available alternatives.
Utilitarians accept the fact that a good may produce some consequential harm and that some people may be injured. In approaching problem solving, especially ones involving multiple constituencies, managers can achieve congruence between decisions and the moral point of view (Manley II & Shrode, 1990).Consequently, in every situation, the manager can consider a utilitarian analysis to determine the right action or practice. Along this line or analysis, the moral principles of conduct inculcated in a person are mostly irrelevant to act utilitarian. In addition, concepts of duty and rights are subordinate to the consequence of the action. Moreover, the morality of the actor is distinct and independent from the morality of the action. It is the consequence of the action, not the motives of the actor, that determines whether the actor is right.
A manager, contemplating a specific action or practice, who wishes to make a utilitarian decision must first determine what alternative actions to the proposed course are available, second calculate the costs and benefits that a given action will produce for every affected person, and third select the alternative that produces the greatest sum of utility or the least amount of disutility (Manley II & Shrode, 1990). In the context of management, utilitarian reasoning frequently manifests itself as a commitment to the social virtues of the market system, both inside the organization and outside. Greatest good comes from competitive decision-making and market forces can be relied upon to minimize social harm. Utilitarianism was the dominant normative ethical theory of the industrial nineteenth-century.
Difficulties in applying this analytical process arise in the disregard of the minority, of measuring and comparing goods and bads, the failure to account how equitably the utility is distributed, and the impossibility of determining the consequences of alternative actions. An advantage is that the utilitarian approach provides a touchstone for ethical thinking in a structure that resembles a scientific, empirical method (Manley II & Shrode, 1990). After analyzing the data there can be different alternatives to resolve the problem. One is to determine the reasons for the people not wanting to have changes in the organization. Finding out what really causes the problem can be a good assistance in solving the problem. Another alternative that can be used is explaining more to the people why there is a need for change. This can be done by providing examples of how changes gave benefits to certain companies.
Risk
Risk has different implications. It has different implications for management, society, politics and other genre. Risk represents a complex interface among a particular set of behaviours and outcome expectations in a particular environmental context. Risk in social life must be approached in a non-technical manner; hence the common distinction between risk and uncertainty is neither realistic nor practical when applied to the analysis of non-quantifiable and ill-defined problems, such as those posed by important political-military issues. The classic distinction found in economics between risk and uncertainty postulates that risk exists when decision makers have perfect knowledge of all possible outcomes associated with an event and the probability distribution of their occurrence, whereas uncertainty exists when a decision maker has neither the knowledge of nor the probability distribution of the outcomes (Vertzberger, 1998).
Risk in social life happens most of the time to any person. Such risks involve creating the best decisions. The decision to be made should be beneficial and not cause harm to a person, people around him/her, the society and other things that might be affected. Decisions involving risk in politics are different from similar decisions in business, an area that has generated extensive research on risk taking. Political decision makers, especially foreign policy decision makers, are not accustomed to defining their level of acceptable risk precisely and systematically prior to making a decision. This is not the case, for example, in stock market gambles, where investors are expected to specify acceptable risk levels. The main reason for this difference is that in business there exist, to a greater extent than in politics, consensual norms of what reasonable business practices are. In politics, on the other hand, a consensual normative framework that distinguishes the gambler from the astute, responsible government leader has yet to emerge, let alone become an integral part of decision making culture (Vertzberger, 1998).
Risk can be divided into three types namely real, perceived, and acceptable. Real risk is the actual risk resulting from a situation or behaviour, whether decision makers are aware or unaware of it. Perceived risk is the level of risk attributed to a situation or behaviour by the decision makers. The response of different individuals and groups facing the same type and level of real risk may vary because of dissimilar risk perceptions. The third type of risk is acceptable risk, which is the level of risk representing the net costs that decision makers perceive as sustainable, and are willing to bear, in pursuit of their goals (Vertzberger, 1998). Risk is addressed nowadays by a wide variety of special research areas and even by different scientific disciplines. The traditional statistical treatment of risk calculation has been joined by economic research (Luhmann, 1993). The development of a person’s expertise in coping with risks and uncertainty begins in infancy or after being born. The trial and error processes in which people first learn to crawl, and then walk and talk, involve decision-making in the face of uncertainty. In the people’s development towards maturity people progressively upgrade the risk-taking skills they have; people learn how to handle sharp things and hot things, how to ride a bicycle and cross the street, how to communicate specific needs and wants, how to read the moods of others, how to stay out of trouble. Although staying out of trouble is one skill people never master completely. It appears to be a skill that people do not want to master completely (Adams, 1995). Taking risk may lead an organization to do something that can be right or wrong depending on how the risk was made.
Risk Management
Risk management pertains to bigger concerns and responsibilities. This includes the formal sector or in layman’s terms the authorities. This large sector that has more power to implement changes includes sectors such as the government, commerce, industry, and the society. The large sector employs persons such as ambulance drivers, toxicologists, engineers, policemen, mathematicians, statisticians, economists, chaos theorists, computer programmers, driving instructors, religious persons, politicians and parents to name a few that informs people about certain things. The work of this sector is highly visible and highly important. It holds inquests and commissions research. It passes laws and formulates regulations. It runs safety training programmes and posts warning signs. It puts up fences and locks gates. It instructs proper and responsible way of doing things. It scolds those who don’t follow. It employs inspectors and enforcers many of them are in uniform. Their objective is to reduce risk. But there is also the informal sector consisting of children and grown-up children, and their responsibility is much bigger. The informal sector consists of billions of freelance risk managers that are ordinary or common small children, garden/playground experts, or school children each having his/her own personal agenda. They go about the business of life which includes eating, drinking, loving, hating, walking, driving, saving, investing, working, socializing, striving for health, wealth and happiness in a world they know to be uncertain. The objective of these risk managers is to balance risks. They aim to distinguish the effect of taking different kinds of risks (Adams, 1995). Risk management makes sure that the risk taken will result to a good thing for the company. It makes sure that before risk is made all possibilities are known and the probable effects of taking risks are seen.
Risk assessment
Risk assessment (RA) parallels Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA). Both are concerned with the likely consequences of environmental change. RA is frequently used to assess the probability and likely consequences of a particular catastrophic event, such as an explosion, associated with a hazardous installation. It may also be used to assess policy issues such as the implications of introducing a novel chemical, such as a new pesticide. Risk assessments tend to be highly numeric appraisals; they are essentially statistical analysis of likely events based upon certain probabilities of occurrence. The use of RA has certain implications particularly for non-numerate decision makers. First, it suffers from the same potential weakness as all quantitative predictions of change. Non-quantified parameters must either be forced into a numerical appearance that is based upon arbitrary considerations, or plainly ignored. These subjective elements are generally obscured within the analysis.
Robustness which is the dependence of the outcome of an analysis upon the assumptions built into it may not be determined. Secondly, decision makers may treat such highly quantified assessments respectfully, affording them greater acceptance than what is warranted and weighting them more highly than more descriptive treatments of likely impacts (Wathern, 1992). There are different risks for taking the above mentioned alternatives. One risk is the people may still be not convinced that the changes must happen. Some of the people may refuse to understand the explanation of the need to create changes thus creating some barriers to changes. Another risk for taking the alternatives is it may create additional problems. Division can be created by finding out the reasons why some people don’t want the changes.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment