The Moral Limitations of the Rational-Monistic Model

2015 ◽  
pp. 1394-1413
Author(s):  
Galit Berenstok ◽  
Ishak Saporta
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
Rational Action ◽  
Rational Decision ◽  
Rational Model ◽  
Utility Value ◽  
Rational Decision Making ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Decision Making Model ◽  
Range Of Values

This chapter proposes a rational-pluralistic model for decision making in organizations. The authors developed this model as a potential solution to the negative moral implications (such as alienation from the workplace) that the formal rational decision making model has on organization employees. The negative moral implications are due to the fact that the formal rational model is monistic, limited by the considerations of the organization's utility, and neglects moral values and non-utility values that are related to the employee. The rational-pluralistic model is based on a revision of the concept of rationality and rational action. The basic assumption of this model is that there is a range of values other than the utility value that are involved in rational decision making. The more extended definition of rationality makes it possible to avoid a situation in which employees are only the means for organization goals, rather than ends in themselves.

The Moral Limitations of the Rational-Monistic Model

2015 ◽  
pp. 127-145
Author(s):  
Galit Berenstok ◽  
Ishak Saporta
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
Rational Action ◽  
Rational Decision ◽  
Rational Model ◽  
Utility Value ◽  
Rational Decision Making ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Decision Making Model ◽  
Range Of Values

This chapter proposes a rational-pluralistic model for decision making in organizations. The authors developed this model as a potential solution to the negative moral implications (such as alienation from the workplace) that the formal rational decision making model has on organization employees. The negative moral implications are due to the fact that the formal rational model is monistic, limited by the considerations of the organization's utility, and neglects moral values and non-utility values that are related to the employee. The rational-pluralistic model is based on a revision of the concept of rationality and rational action. The basic assumption of this model is that there is a range of values other than the utility value that are involved in rational decision making. The more extended definition of rationality makes it possible to avoid a situation in which employees are only the means for organization goals, rather than ends in themselves.

scholarly journals An analysis of systemic thinking in decision-making processes in the municipalities within the province of KwaZulu-Natal

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 531-547
Author(s):  
Mbuyiseni Goodlife Ntuli ◽  
Lawrence Mpela Lekhanya
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Process Model ◽  
Business Environment ◽  
Rational Decision ◽  
Systemic Thinking ◽  
Rational Decision Making ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Kwazulu Natal ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Decision Making Model

This paper advocates the adoption of systemic thinking in decision-making processes in municipalities. Most importantly, in this epoch of managing in complex and thought-provoking business environment, decision making is one of the most important skills required by any manager to remain effective. The success of a municipality or any business hinges on how well decisions are taken and implemented. In this paper, I intend to scrutinize decision making processes at strategic management levels in the municipalities within the province of KwaZulu-Natal. In doing that, a mixed method approach of qualitative and quantitative techniques was adopted in gathering data from sixty-one municipalities within the province of KwaZulu-Natal. This was done in order to substantiate theoretical perspectives from different erudite scholars on the discourse of systemic thinking in decision making processes. This notion of systemic thinking is coined upon the universally used rational decision making process model. Thus, the conceptualization of rational decision-making model was also considered in this paper, the possibility of decision failure, the complexity of the municipality, and systemic thinking as the recommended option of dealing with complexity was explored. The results indicates that the theory that underpins the adoption of systemic thinking in dealing with complexity today’s business environment is relevant.

Consequence and Utility Modeling in Rational Decision Making

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc A. Maes ◽  
Michael H. Faber ◽  
Sherif S. Abdelatif
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Utility Functions ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Rational Decision ◽  
Rational Decision Making ◽  
Large Structures ◽  
Utility Optimization ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Cascade Effects

Offshore design and risk assessment are typically marked by far-reaching choices and important one-time decisions. Decision analysis involving large structures, sensitive environments, and difficult operations, requires a very careful formulation of utility and consequences. It is shown in this paper that one of the most important shortcomings of such analyses stems from an incomplete definition of the system, and from the failure to include various “follow-up” consequences. “Follow-up” consequences are, generally speaking, triggered by extreme losses, such as excessive business losses, consequences from unexpected cascade effects, collateral and indirect losses, or other intangible losses. The non-inclusion of such losses occurs either voluntarily or involuntarily. Often the identification and the valuation of follow-up consequences can be prohibitively difficult. For such cases, it is possible to use a simple model based on risk aversion to the consequences associated with extreme discrete hazards during the lifetime of a system. This model is developed in the framework of a lifecycle utility optimization. To add practical value to this model, we also introduce the concept of a Bayesian updating of utility functions. Since utility functions are all about expressing the preferences of expert decision makers, we refer to the Bayesian parameters as “preference” parameters. The paper shows that the approaches developed lead to better and more risk-consistent decision making. An illustrative example is given in the paper, highlighting the significance of the findings.

scholarly journals A Methodology for Redesigning Networks by Using Markov Random Fields

Mathematics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 1389
Author(s):  
Julia García Cabello ◽  
Pedro A. Castillo ◽  
Maria-del-Carmen Aguilar-Luzon ◽  
Francisco Chiclana ◽  
Enrique Herrera-Viedma
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Random Fields ◽  
Markov Random Fields ◽  
Application Performance ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Markov Random ◽  
User Groups ◽  
Universal Definition ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Decision Making Model

Standard methodologies for redesigning physical networks rely on Geographic Information Systems (GIS), which strongly depend on local demographic specifications. The absence of a universal definition of demography makes its use for cross-border purposes much more difficult. This paper presents a Decision Making Model (DMM) for redesigning networks that works without geographical constraints. There are multiple advantages of this approach: on one hand, it can be used in any country of the world; on the other hand, the absence of geographical constraints widens the application scope of our approach, meaning that it can be successfully implemented either in physical (ATM networks) or non-physical networks such as in group decision making, social networks, e-commerce, e-governance and all fields in which user groups make decisions collectively. Case studies involving both types of situations are conducted in order to illustrate the methodology. The model has been designed under a data reduction strategy in order to improve application performance.

Resource-rational decision making

2021 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
pp. 15-21
Author(s):  
Rahul Bhui ◽  
Lucy Lai ◽  
Samuel J Gershman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Rational Decision ◽  
Rational Decision Making

Author reply: Empathy Does Provide Rational Support for Decisions. But Is It the Right Decision?

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fritz Breithaupt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Rational Decision ◽  
Author Reply ◽  
Rational Decision Making ◽  
Rational Support ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

This article examines the relation of empathy and rational judgment. When people observe a conflict most are quick to side with one of the parties. Once a side has been taken, empathy with that party further solidifies this choice. Hence, it will be suggested that empathy is not neutral to judgment and rational decision-making. This does not mean, however, that the one who empathizes will necessarily have made the best choice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document