1. How would you define “Frozen Preferences” and what is the impact of this concept on strategy formulation, alternative analysis and recommendation? • Managers don’t like to make major strategic changes once decisions have been made (except in the case of overwhelming evidence) as they will look unprepared and ineffective and their creditability is damaged • Frozen preferences o Management has made a decision and over time analysis shows that their decision may not be the best choice o However they feel compelled to maintain their current strategy even if it is not the best course of action. • As management preferences becomes a larger part of the organization (personnel changes, budgets etc), it becomes more and more difficult to change direction. o A tendency to avoid reversing changes even if it was not the best choice o In reality, past expenditures are sunk costs and the organization should use a clean slate to look at new choices, but to the manager, this will come at great personal loss.
According to Nagel, there is a paradox in moral responsibility caused by two concept: moral luck and the Control Principle. Moral luck designates blame on someone for actions outside of their control. The Control Principle, on the other hand, is the belief that blame should only be designated on someone for actions within their control. These two ideas are in direct contradiction of one another and it would be foolish to believe both. However, Nagel argues that we cannot plausibly reject either of them.
Would any restrictions apply to the domain and range of those equations? Explain your reasoning using complete sentences. No, because a line is the set of all points. As long as the point
DQ1: Explain the concept of utility under the utilitarianism theory. How can a business achieve a level of utility? DQ2: What is the connection between justice and utility under utilitarianism theory? What are a few assumptions and problems with utilitarianism theory? DQ3: What are the similarities and differences between the concepts of justice under the utilitarianism theory and distributive justice theory?
They also struggled with understanding the difference between their ‘best alternative’ and the lens assigned ‘best alternative’. Ethical lenses adopted by individuals tend to influence decision making by affecting how problems and conflicts are approached. Your ethical lens of preference makes you ‘blind’ to the other approaches and makes it difficult to see the benefits of the other lenses and weaknesses of your own lens. This adds tension to groups because what seems like the best solution to a problem to a single team member might be completely inappropriate to another. The team found that these different approaches can create more issues within a team or group if you don’t understand that everyone has their own ‘right approach.’ To a rights and responsibilities lens approaching an issue head on and dealing with the conflict directly might not be fun, but it is necessary in order to move past the problem in the most efficient way possible.
Selfperception affects an individual’s self-efficacy skills, therefore affecting how an individual will communicate their experiences. While self-perception is an important trait to take into consideration when dealing with self-reporting, it does however, as mentioned, affect the validity of the results due to individuals underreporting and over reporting their actions. Comparisons of Limitations All three articles discussed the limitation of self-reporting, more so in Article 1. While self-reporting is indeed a valuable asset, self-reporting at times is affected due to individuals underreporting their behavior, as well as over reporting it (Hauge et al., 2009). Underreporting occurs due to individuals being dishonest regarding their behavior, therefore causing an error in the research done.
Weaknesses of Causal Comparative Two weaknesses in causal-comparative research are lack of randomization and inability to manipulate an independent variable. A major threat to the internal validity of a causal-comparative study is the possibility of a subject selection bias. The chief procedures that a researcher can use to reduce this threat include matching subjects on a related variable or creating homogeneous subgroups, and the technique of statistical matching. Other threats to internal validity in causal-comparative studies include location, instrumentation, and loss of subjects. In addition, type 3 studies are subject to implementation, history, maturation, attitude of subjects, regression, and testing threats.
For a more explicit understanding, doubt by definition is the uncertainty of belief or opinion that often interferes with decision-making. Knowledge by definition is the acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report. The correlation between the two is that the more you doubt, the more knowledge you gain because instead of being focused on one certain conclusion, you start thinking about other possible outcomes. This is due to the fact that we use doubt, as well as being open-minded. Being open-minded means to be receptive to arguments or ideas.
Mainstream rational choice theorists argue that individuals are purely motivated by self-interest. This approach supports the argument that ‘individuals have all the rational capacity, time and emotional detachment necessary to choose the best course of action’, this theory deems that individuals are programmed to be able to take into consideration the results of hypothetical (options that only exist in theory) actions, and place in order of preference, choosing the option that maximises their utility. Zafirovski highlights that, ‘Rational choice theory is grounded on the neo-classical economic model of rationality with its basis in the concept of utility function’, this emphasises the actions of the individual, likening their profit maximising predispositions to that of the manufacturer and consumer in neo-classical economics. The concept of rational choice has even been broadened to cover the issue of extremism, such as terrorism, arguing that rational actors martyr
Fisher and Ury recognize that "behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones". Therefore many negotiations include integrative as well as distributive components. The authors' principle based approach perfectly works out for integrative negotiations which have the aim to create value for both parties according to their individual interest. Nevertheless their approach does not provide satisfying results for the second, the distributive part, of the negotiation. The recommendation to develop objective criteria in order to fairly distribute the value is not appropriate in reality.