Decision-Making Process in Organizations-Free-Samples for Students

Question: Discuss about the role of a Manager in inspiring ethics in the decision-making process in Organizations. Answer: Introduction Decision-making process is a vital step that determines the viability and credibility of one's decision. Therefore, utilizing an appropriate method to make a choice is key to the realization of an outcome that is deemed as fair, viable and value adding to all the stakeholders directly impacted by the impending decision. This paper examines the role of a manager in inspiring ethics in the decision-making process in organizations. The report discusses all the steps involved in the process of making the decision, thus crucial in helping both the individuals and organizations to make right decisions. The Process of Decision Making Entrepreneurs and managers make decisions on a daily basis regarding the operational and strategic issues in the company. These decisions largely dictate the fate of the company. A viable and appropriate choice is often a significant gain to both the business and image of the firm. Best practice decision making has clear stages and employs stakeholders involvement. The parties directly or indirectly impacted by the decision have to be given an opportunity to express their opinion and enjoy the transparency of the process. Moreover, this involvement ensures that issues at hand are viewed in broad perspective and detailed analysis made to arrive at an optimum solution. (Stanovich and West, 2008, pp. 672-695). An ideal decision-making procedure should be guided by several steps that seek to identify the problem, collect information on the issue and weighing on the available solution. The detailed categorization of the process entails Identification of the problem and purpose of the decision, Information gathering, Principle of judging alternatives. Brainstorming and analysis of different choices, Evaluation of alternatives, Select the best replacement, execute the decision and evaluate the result (Green, 2013). These steps provide a system process that people can follow to arrive at the best decision to their problems. The brainstorming phase give s the decision maker an opportunity to evaluate the best available alternatives, and thus, develop a robust approach to solve a given problem. Identification of the problem and purpose of the decision The emergence and rapid spreading of a terrible virus in West Africa has threatened the lives of people in that region. The fact that human life has to be saved and preserved at all costs, massive efforts and support need to be harnessed and channeled to salvage the situation. Interventions need to be made by different stakeholders including the World Health Organization body to bring sanity and dignity to the quality of lives of people from the region. However, every decision has consequences. Firstly, the antidote discovered through the experiment done to chimpanzees proved it could cure the disease, but its side effects to human beings are still unknown (Sharot, Korn and Dolan, 2011, pp. 14751479). Ethics guides those drugs without knowledge of side effects should not be administered to human beings. This is because of potential harm to their bodies which can deny the victims dignified lives (Pant, 2011). Further, it is within the rights of the victims to have consent and approve any procedures and treatments to their bodies that impact on their quality of lives. Otherwise, the organization risks closure and massive lawsuits if the drugs occasions fatal side effects to the patients. As a manager, the issue needs to be looked holistically and in depth to determine the stakeholders and extent of their involvement (Chou, Johnson, Ward, and Blewett, 2009, 2282-2288). Also, the manager will set the goal and purpose of the decision sought as helping an ailing people recover and improve their quality of lives and also ensuring the organization does not suffer a setback as the result of the decision. Another factor to the problem is ten years to determine the safety of the drugs to hum an lives by the Australian authorities (Guo, 2008, pp. 118127). Information gathering Information gathering forms the next stage in this process also termed stakeholders involvement. This an equally important step to achieve an informed and all-inclusive decision acceptable to all the parties. The leadership of the pharmaceutical needs to assess the situation in light of the suffering and potential loss of lives of the victims in West Africa and potential impact of the decision made on the organization (Poudyal, Gopal, and Kedar, 2011). Information sharing process thus facilitates the easy stages of dividing. There should a channel to overcome the other existing aspects in the field, as a way to be continued. Administering of the drugs to the victims will either have positive or negative consequences to both parties. The drugs will arrest the rampant spreading of the virus but have unforeseen side effects to the patients (Blanchfield, Heffernan, Osgood, Sheehan and Meyer, 2010). In the worst case, the side effects can be fatal and end up causing physiological illness or deaths in the worst case. Thus, it is important how important the process of making decisions and therefore, come up with the best way to do information gatherings. As a manager, there is need to front the leadership of the corporation to engage the health authority in Australia and also seek the input of the WHO World health organization body to concluding (Perneger and Agoritsas, 2011, pp. 14111417). Furthermore, both the health practitioner and health authorities in West Africa will be brought on board at this stage so that the matter of the unpredictability of side effects of the drugs is revealed and appreciated. This is a move to promote transparency and credible process (Lachman, 2012, pp. 248-250). Principle of judging alternatives The manager and his team of stakeholders have two choices which are to administer the drugs or aborting the mission. Either way, the criteria for evaluating the alternatives needs to objective, credible and sensible. Due consideration has to be apportioned to the dignity of human life and the reputation of the corporation in the event of a disastrous result (Kaufman, 2011, pp. 299-304). Also, the organization will have to refer to the corporate culture and organizational goals and objectives to ensure that the process is consistent. It is the manager's role to ensure that solution achieved does not contravene the belief, corporate culture and professional ethics of the organization (Voges, 2012, pp. 30-32). Thus, the process of making the judgments is through comparing the available solutions, and the other options available to handle the problem. Brainstorming and analyze different choices Brainstorming is the stage of thinking about any other alternatives that can alleviate the looming crisis. The stakeholders will list all the ideas randomly awaiting evaluation stage. Causes of the problem guide this exercise as they enlist in priority and generate possible solutions simultaneously (Johnson and Stoskopf, 2010). As a manager, the team will be encouraged and tuned into thinking outside the box to offer a reasonable solution or intervene to improve the situation pending determination of the viability of the drugs by the Australian health authorities (Brunin and Aghurst, 2013). Evaluation of alternatives Evaluation stage is the phase of screening to ensure compliance to ethical considerations both in the profession and humanitarian dealing. The options are also weighed for effectiveness and futuristic outcome in that a problem occurs that will be fatal and irreversible (Schacter, Gilbert, and Wegner, 2011). An in-depth and holistic scrutiny detailing the pros and cons of each option will provide a clear visibility to the next phase of selection of the alternative. The manager needs to maintain the focus on the objective criteria for evaluation at this stage (Toren and Wagner, 2010, pp. 393-402). Select the best alternative This is the phase of settling on a decision after due process of evaluating the available options. All the parties involved or the majority of stakeholders must support the decision and pledge commitment to the option for it to be adopted. Otherwise, the implementation of the decision will be sabotaged or done indigently (Northouse, 2007). To this effect, the alternative option will be to shun the usage of the drugs for lack of knowledge on its side effects to the potential patients. Also in compliance and display of submissiveness and unison with the Australian health authorities, the corporation has to reject the request by the health worker in Western Africa to give room for the authorities to declare its safety for human treatment. Further, the leadership of the corporation will consider engaging the World Health Organization in providing any other form of health services to the victims to mitigate the suffering (Frisch and Huppenbauer, 2014, pp. 23-43). It can be through pooling of resources by the stakeholders to provide any additional necessary support including guiding and counseling to the victims. Thus, the availability of the choices in the process of making the decision important give an opportunity for the other people or projects to take form. Execute the decision The leadership of the corporation through the manager will have to directly respond to the colleague health worker revealing the position of the company and justifying the same. Importantly, there should be plans for set activities made to action the decision reached during the decision making process. The manner of execution of the judgment is utterly essential because it determines the attitude and understanding of the affected parties (Garman, Johnson, and Royer, 2011). The manager will have to arrange a sit down meeting with his colleague due to the grave matter of the situation and politely decline the request and justify the decision. Meanwhile, he will have to reveal the plans of the corporation to engage other stakeholders in intervening in that situation and contributing as much to mitigate the suffering of the victims. The brainstorming phase identified an option of offering another health assistance including guiding and counseling to the affected people to improve their quality of lives (Thompson, 2008). Evaluate the result Finally, the result of the decision is analyzed at this stage in time. Gaps and corrective and preventive measures noted for futuristic purposes. The feedback from the stakeholders forms the basis of evaluation of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the decision. In this case, the result is anticipated to be overwhelmingly positive because of ethical professionalism and due process of stakeholders involvement. Further, the team went an extra mile to offer services that will improve the situation pending the determination of the safety of the drugs. The result is the final evaluation aspect where one analyzes the results that have been brought about by the decision that was made. The stage identifies new knowledge, and other factors brought out of the results of the decision. Conclusion Decision making is a critical process that dictates the success of an initiative or undertaking. Best practice decision making demands procedural steps in which the stakeholders are involved to give inputs and for transparency and consent purposes. Equally important, the parties in decision making have the liberty to brainstorm and come with alternatives outside the presented ones as long as it will improve the situation at hand as a lasting solution is searched. Finally, managers in organizations have the responsibility to ensure viability and appropriate solutions are achieved in this process with due regard to the culture, professionalism and the corporate goals and objectives. References Brunin, P. and Aghurst, T. (2013). Improving Ethical Decision Making in the Health Care Leadership. Toren, O. and Wagner, N. (2010). Applying an ethical decision-making tool to a nurse management dilemma. Nursing Ethics, pp. 393-402. Lachman, V. (2012). Ethical challenges in the era of health care reform. Medsurg Nurs, pp. 248-250. Blanchfield, B., Heffernan, J, Osgood, B., Sheehan, R. and Meyer, G. (2010). Saving billions of dollars and the physician's time by streamlining billing practices. Health Aff 29: 1248-1254. Chou, C., Johnson, P., Ward, A. and Blewett, L. (2009). Health care coverage and the health care industry. Am J Public Health, pp. 2282-2288. Kaufman, N. (2011). A practical roadmap for the perilous journey from a culture of the entitlement to a culture of accountability. J Healthc Manag, pp. 299-304. Voges, N. (2012). The ethics of mission and margin. Health. Exec 27, pp. 30-32. Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership theory and practice (4th Ed.). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. Garman, A., Johnson, T. and Royer, T. (2011). The Future of Healthcare: Global Trends worth Watching. Health Administration Press. Johnson, J. and Stoskopf, C. (2010). Comparative health systems global perspectives. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Frisch, C. and Huppenbauer, M. (2014). New Insights into Ethical Leadership: A Qualitative Investigation of the Experiences of the Executive Ethical Leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 23-43. Poudyal, S., Gopal, M. and Kedar, P. (2011). The principle of Management. Asmita books publishers and distributors (P) ltd. Pant, P. (2011). The principle of the Management. Kathmandu, Nepal: Buddha Academic Publishers and the Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Guo, K. (June 2008). "DECIDE: a decision-making model for more effective decision making by healthcare managers." The Health Care Manager, pp. 118127. Schacter, D, Gilbert, D., and Wegner, D. (2011). Psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers. Perneger, T. and Agoritsas, T. (December 2011). "Doctors and patients' susceptibility to the framing bias: a randomized trial". Journal of General Internal Medicine, pp. 14111417. Sharot, T., Korn, C., and Dolan, R. (October 2011). "How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality." Nature Neuroscience, pp. 14751479. Green, L. (2013). Practicing the art of leadership. Pearson education Inc., Upper Saddle River. Thompson, L. (2008). Making the Team: A guide for Managers (3rd Ed.) Prentice, NJ. Stanovich, K. and West, R. (2008). On the relative independence of the thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, pp. 672-695.