Values and Decision-Making - Essay Example

Student Name: Tutor: Subject: Institutional affiliation: Date: Personal decision making reflection 1 Introduction Decision making especially in the context of management is never as easy as it may seem. More often than not business decision making has been perceived on the narrow concept of profit and loss. But in the whole process of decision making there are several issues that inform decision making and have an effect on the outcome of a decision in the view of management and also other involved stakeholders (Seedhouse, 2005). This paper is a critical reflection of a decision making situation that I was involved in while working for a small advertising firm in Newcastle. The firm operates a number of websites that are used to attract traffic through search engine optimized articles and commentary on current issues in the business world for example launch of new products and product reviews. After a short strategy meeting of four staff member in which I was involved to represent the social media platform department of the firm, we decided to use celebrity gossip as a way of increasing the traffic to the sites to attract more advertisers and thus boost revenue. I initially thought this was a good idea until the marketing director pointed out that the stories covered don’t have to be necessarily true but rather interesting and capable of going viral on the internet. The firm would also use unconventional investigation to spy on celebrities. The decision was passed without opposition as I did not object since I thought we were operating in an environment with intense competition and we had to figure out how to survive and make profit. A number of decision making issues emerged from this situation which I intend to discuss exhaustively using different models and relevant theories for better understanding. I believe the decision made achieved minimal results in the short run but would hurt long term attractiveness of the business and as such shouldn’t have been implemented had we considered the implication beyond short term gain. In this paper I will reflect on some of the issues under appropriate subheadings. 2 Ethical issues Ethics has been defined as the art of judging human ends and their relationship with the means used to them. Ethical conduct is then perceived to be so if it puts into consideration the interests and wellbeing of other beings affected by a decision makers conduct (Robbins & Judge, 2011). Basing on this understanding then I think the strategy team of the advertising firm did not act in a way that can be considered ethical at all. We were only concerned of how we can increase the number of people visiting our spites so that we can use that as a backing to have a higher bargaining power when negotiating advertisement deals with business. This would have also attracted more firms to us and thus increase the revenue collected by the firm. The end of the agenda is good; every business wants to make as much revenue as possible from its operations but then it’s the means that are questionable. Publishing untrue gossips on local and international celebrities may serve the purpose of bringing on board curious readers especially the youthful members of the society that are so much interested in celebrity gossip, but on the other hand it may result in a majority of our current readers down rating us as another gossip site that has ceased to provide the well researched business articles it used to publish on its sites; this is a critical client base. Ethically it may for a matter of fact ruin the reputation of certain celebrities who may be fighting to keep their private life private. The advertising firm is aware of all this and also of the fact that it may have top employ unconventional ways to acquire some private information regarding the celebrities for example tapping into phone conversations and hacking into email accounts. It can be said then that to the company the end justifies the means; that profitability is the main agenda and such issues as responsible reporting don’t concern the firm. I believe we would have made a decision according to how we think view the situation in relation to ethical consideration, but instead we chose to narrowly decide the way forward relying chiefly on Machiavellianism where the end justifies the means and nothing else matters as noted by Seedhouse (2005). I think the societal values of what is right and what is wrong should have guided us on arriving at an appropriate decision. 3 Personality issues Personality can be understood to be the unique characteristics that determine how we act and react to our immediate environment. It is what Robbins and Judge (2011: 135) described as the dynamic organisation within the individual of those psychological systems that determine his unique adjustments to his environment. I agree with these definitions and can only derive one understanding that everybody has a certain personality that in a way predetermines how such an individual reacts to issues within their environment. As such decision making is always going to be affected by the personality of an individual. An individual whose personality is defined by risk aversion is bound to make decisions that present minimal risk of failure of negative implication (Kimmel, 2009). I think that individual decisions carry so much of personality influence that group decisions. When it comes to group decisions various personalities are involved but then a single decision has to be made which does not necessarily fit with the personality of the individual group members (MacKinnon, 2011). When we were deciding whether to implement the proposed strategy, I found it conflicting with my personal opinion which might be influenced by my personality type. Being a type B personality I prefer well thought decisions that are not implemented hurriedly to achieve so much within so little time. Many people in the meeting though seemed to me as type B personalities who are the exact opposite of my personality type; their personalities seemed more of Machiavellian influenced where to them ends are more important than the means. I exhibited high range agreeableness due to the fact that I didn’t disapprove of their consensus. It tells of how my leniency and trust that everything was to go on fine could be blamed for not raising a concern as to the long term implication of the strategy sought. It means then that decision making is indeed affected by individual personalities that people have. Lenient people are highly likely to be influenced by any convincing argument without hard facts as opposed to less agreeable people who are always suspecting others, criticising common decisions and exhibit high levels of ruthlessness when expressing their opinions or making their decisions (Robbins & Judge, 2011). All the same I think it is sometime difficult to influence group decision making due to the fact that popular opinions sail through easily as opposed to unpopular opinions that are viewed to be only inspired by fear and risk aversion. 4 Values and decision making I learnt from the lecture on personality and values in decision making that a value is an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end state of existence. Values then can be seen as a compass that gives somebody a direction. Values should not though be confused with attitude since attitude is primarily concerned with a single phenomenon (Robbins & Judge, 2011; Knafo & Sagiv, 2004). From the definition of value, I believe personality combined with the values that one cherishes have a profound effect on the kind of decisions one makes and in extension the decision making process. Values answer the question what is right and what is wrong as far as an individual’s understanding is concerned as noted by Hofstede (1991). I personally believe in respecting other people’s right as an ethical behaviour whereby everybody has the obligation of respecting others rights. I find it therefore rather unfortunate that individual privacy of somebody can be violated upon to fulfil personal gains in terms of profits. This is what the advertising company did through the strategy team that I was part of. Even thug I did participate in the whole strategising and implementing part as I felt that the whole idea was in conflict with my personality and the values I hold. It is important to note at this point that I have come to learn that values are stable and enduring and are never suppressed by any amount of personal convincing. Ultimately they will win over somebody’s conscience to make them re-evaluate their decisions. I realised that my values tilt much towards what Schwartz referred to as conformity which is basically avoidance of any actions that are likely to upset or harm others and that might violate social expectations or norms (Harrison, 1996). That is why I internally disagreed with the idea of using untrue or personal information to invade the private space of celebrities in a marketing website just to gain more traffic at the expense of subjecting another human being into undue pressure from misconceived public opinion and exposure of their personal information which most of us wouldn’t like the general public to know. Societal values of what is wrong and what is right obviously would not approve of this especially because it is not for the greater good of the society but rather profiteering efforts. If the advertising company would uphold high moral standards and values, then the whole strategy team would be aware of what is expected of them and arrive at a decision that has adequately considered the company’s values and positioning in the society. All the same rational decision-makers majority of who participated in making the decision in the strategy meeting don’t find values as helpful in decision making (Preston, 2007). They are instead viewed as hindrances since they cannot be quantified and are also relative on the prevailing situation. To such individuals then values don’t influence decision making to a greater extent but rather rationality (Robbins & Judge, 2011). I learnt that values have hierarchies; from the individual to the group to the organisation and ultimately to the society. At the group level value conflicts is almost unavoidable but can be harmonised if group member collectively internalize the values of the group. At the organisation level it is all about rationality especially when survival or profitability goals have to be achieved (Robbins & Judge, 2011; Roth & Mullen, 2002). This is basically the situation that my team faced. We were in a situation of conflicting values yet at the same time the organisation expected to see rational decision based on market success potential made. This obviously meant we had to come up with a decision to favour the organisation and not us as a group or individuals. 5 Recommendations and conclusion I believe I would have been in a position to influence the decision making of the group if I had a better definition of ethics as a judgement of ends in light of the means used to achieve the end. My decision to support my team’s decision didn’t consider ethical implications in the long term and I think I would have made a better decision if I fully understood how ethics should influence decision making. Personality conflict with the team’s decision was also another issue that emerged from the situation but I did little to assert myself as I moved with the majority. I think if I understood how my personality together with the values I uphold can be important when making decisions, then I would have influenced my team or at least withdraw from the decision making process to uphold my values in respecting individual privacy and honest ways of making money. Going forward I believe the theory and decision making models that I have learnt from this course should become very resourceful in making personal and professional decisions especially when values, ethics and personal opinions are involved. 6 References Harrison, E. F. (1996). A process perspective on strategic decision making. Management Decision , 34 (1), 46-53. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Kimmel, A. (2009). Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research: Basic and Applied Perspectives. John Wiley & Sons. Knafo, A., & Sagiv, L. (2004). Values and work environment: mapping 32 occupants. European Journal of Education and Psychology , 19, 255-273. MacKinnon, B. (2011). Ethics: Theory & Contemporary Issues - Concise Edition, 2nd ed.: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Concise Edition. Cengage Learning. Preston, N. (2007). Understanding Ethics. Federation Press. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2011). Organisational Behavior. Pearson Education Limited. Roth, B., & Mullen, J. (2002). Decision Making: Its Logic and Practice. Rowman & Littlefield. Seedhouse, D. (2005). Value-based decision-making for the caring professions. University of Michigan. Whittier, N., Williams, S., & Dewett, T. (2006). Evaluating ethical decision-making models: a review and application. Society and Business Review , 1 (3), 235-247. Read More