Brittany Benson Comm 303 Assignment 2
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•729 views
Karl Weick's theory focuses on how organizations are socially constructed through ongoing interactions between individuals. He believes that organizations emerge from a dynamic process of collective sensemaking, where people enact their environment through action and then retrospectively interpret the results of those actions. Understanding is achieved not by passively receiving information but by actively engaging in discourse and enacting one's world.
Report
Share
Report
Share
![Basic Concepts ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
Procedural justice: Inclusive process for inclusive growth, E. Allan Lind
Presentation by E. Allan Lind, James L. Vincent Distinguished Professor of Leadership, Duke University, at the 6th Expert Meeting on Measuring Regulatory Performance: Evaluating Stakeholder Engagement in Regulatory Policy, Academic Speaker, The Hague, 16-18 June 2014. Further information is available at http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/
Organizational justice
ORGANISATIONAL JUSTICE -TYPES, ANTECEDENTS, AND CONSEQUENCES WITH AN ANALYSED CASE STUDY.BASED ON SEVRAL RESEARCHES DONE IN THE SAME CONTEXT.
Recommended
Procedural justice: Inclusive process for inclusive growth, E. Allan Lind
Presentation by E. Allan Lind, James L. Vincent Distinguished Professor of Leadership, Duke University, at the 6th Expert Meeting on Measuring Regulatory Performance: Evaluating Stakeholder Engagement in Regulatory Policy, Academic Speaker, The Hague, 16-18 June 2014. Further information is available at http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/
Organizational justice
ORGANISATIONAL JUSTICE -TYPES, ANTECEDENTS, AND CONSEQUENCES WITH AN ANALYSED CASE STUDY.BASED ON SEVRAL RESEARCHES DONE IN THE SAME CONTEXT.
Michael D. Cohen, James G. March, andJohan F. OlsenA Gar.docx
Michael D. Cohen, James G. March, and
Johan F. Olsen
A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice
Organized anarchies are organizations characterized hy problematic preferences,
unclear technology, and fluid participation. Recent studies of universities, a fami-
liar form of organized anarchy, suggest that such organizations can be viewed for
some purposes as collections of choices looking for problems, issues and feelings
looking for decision situations in which they might he aired, solutions looking for
issues to which they might he an answer, and decision makers looking for work.
These ideas are translated into an explicit computer simulation model of a gar-
hage can decision process. The general implications of such a model are descrihed
in terms of five major measures on the process. Possible applications of the model
to more narrow predictions are illustrated by an examination of the models pre-
dictions with respect to the effect of adversity on university decision making.
Gonsider organized anarchies. These are
organizations—or decision situations—char-
acterized by three general properties.^ The
first is problematic preferences. In the organi-
zation it is difiBcult to impute a set of prefer-
ences to the decision situation that satisfies
the standard consistency requirements for a
theory of choice. The organization operates
on the basis of a variety of inconsistent and
ill-defined preferences. It can be described
better as a loose collection of ideas than as a
coherent structure; it discovers preferences
through action more than it acts on the basis
of preferences.
The second property is unclear technology.
Although the organization manages to sur-
vive and even produce, its own processes are
not understood by its members. It operates
on the basis of simple trial-and-error proce-
dures, the residue of learning from the acci-
dents of past experience, and pragmatic in-
1 We are indebted to Nancy Block, Hilary Cohen,
and James Glenn for computational, editorial, and
intellectual help; to the Institute of Sociology, Uni-
versity of Bergen, and the Institute of Organization
and Industrial Sociology, Copenhagen School of Eco-
nomics, for institutional hospitality and useful dis-
cussions of organizational behavior; and to the Ford
Foundation for the financial support that made our
collaboration feasible. We also wish to acknowledge
the helpful comments and suggestions of S0ren
Christensen, James S. Coleman, Harald Enderud,
Kare Rommetveit, and WiUiam H. Starbuck.
ventions of necessity. The third property is
fiuid participation. Participants vary in the
amount of time and effort they devote to
different domains; involvement varies from
one time to another. As a result, the bounda-
ries of the organization are uncertain and
changing; the audiences and decision makers
for any particular kind of choice change
capriciously.
These properties of organized anarchy
have been identified often in studies of orga-
nizations. They are characte ...
Ethics in Budgetary Decision Making
A paper my academic colleagues and I wrote while MPA students at The University of Oklahoma.
Bending the Arc of North American Psychologists’ Moral Univers
Bending the Arc of North American Psychologists’ Moral Universe
Toward Communicative Ethics and Social Justice
Richard T. G. Walsh
Wilfrid Laurier University
Social contextual and social justice perspectives on North American psychologists’
conceptions of ethical ideals and prescribed practices show that interpersonal, organi-
zational-institutional, and sociopolitical systems are dimly represented on our moral
landscape. In this critical review I first examine conceptions of ethical decision-making
from cognitive and interpersonal angles, noting the operation of nonrational phenomena
and conversational processes and promoting a communicative conception of ethical
decision-making. Next, I consider how the discourse on the concepts and practice of
ethics addresses both the social conditions of our employment and the challenges of
maintaining professional-personal boundaries on ethical conduct. Lastly, I assess the
ways in which psychologists discuss ethical issues that arise from our espoused
commitments to enhancing human welfare, responsibility to society, and social justice.
I argue that certain historical trends in psychology’s culture reduce our moral vision of
practicing the principle of justice to social reforms that sustain the status quo. I
conclude by questioning how we can shift the transit of our ethical discourse and
practice toward communicative ethics and social justice.
Keywords: ethical decision-making, Habermas, communicative ethics, organizational-institutional
influences, social justice
It seems likely that most North American
(i.e., Canadian and U.S.) colleagues believe that
we psychologists behave ethically in our re-
search, educational, professional, and commu-
nity endeavors despite the embarrassment to our
discipline of some psychologists’ ethical mal-
feasance, such as participation in torture (see
Teo, 2015a). But taking ethical responsibilities
for granted could lead to their marginalization
and invoking them chiefly when a possible so-
ciopolitical transgression, professional ethical
dilemma, or institutional review of a dubious
research project occurs. Instead of central to our
identity as scientific and professional psycholo-
gists, ethics can seem peripheral to our worka-
day worlds (Prilleltensky, Rossiter, & Walsh-
Bowers, 1996), reducible to a recitation of
standards that demand adherence. A different
view is that all aspects of our vocation are pro-
foundly moral, ethical, and social. That is, princi-
ples and practices of ethics, which are historical
constructions, are enacted in the context of in-
terpersonal, organizational-institutional, and so-
cietal systems and particular cultural traditions.
Accordingly, our principles and standards for
ethical conduct, as well as our conduct itself,
should reflect critical consciousness of the so-
cial-contextual phenomena saturating ethics.
In this spirit, and from my perspective as a
Canadian contributor to the literature in critical
psychology (Teo, 2015b) ...
The beer game - a production distribution simulation
A presentation by Michael D. Ford CFPIM, CSCP, CQA, CRE, CQE, Principal, TQM Works Consulting, USA delivered during the 38th annual SAPICS event for supply chain professionals in Sun City, South Africa.
The Beer Game was developed by Jay Forrester at MIT’s Sloan business school in the early 1960s. It is a simple yet realistic simulator of the supply chain and is used as a teaching tool for systems dynamics. It has been played all over the world by thousands of people ranging from high school students to chief executive officers and government officials. Each participant plays a role in the production and distribution of a product, in this case “beer”.
Systems Thinking for Product Managers
Keynote for the Mind The Product Engage Conference in Hamburg, 28 April 2017
More Related Content
Similar to Brittany Benson Comm 303 Assignment 2
Michael D. Cohen, James G. March, andJohan F. OlsenA Gar.docx
Michael D. Cohen, James G. March, and
Johan F. Olsen
A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice
Organized anarchies are organizations characterized hy problematic preferences,
unclear technology, and fluid participation. Recent studies of universities, a fami-
liar form of organized anarchy, suggest that such organizations can be viewed for
some purposes as collections of choices looking for problems, issues and feelings
looking for decision situations in which they might he aired, solutions looking for
issues to which they might he an answer, and decision makers looking for work.
These ideas are translated into an explicit computer simulation model of a gar-
hage can decision process. The general implications of such a model are descrihed
in terms of five major measures on the process. Possible applications of the model
to more narrow predictions are illustrated by an examination of the models pre-
dictions with respect to the effect of adversity on university decision making.
Gonsider organized anarchies. These are
organizations—or decision situations—char-
acterized by three general properties.^ The
first is problematic preferences. In the organi-
zation it is difiBcult to impute a set of prefer-
ences to the decision situation that satisfies
the standard consistency requirements for a
theory of choice. The organization operates
on the basis of a variety of inconsistent and
ill-defined preferences. It can be described
better as a loose collection of ideas than as a
coherent structure; it discovers preferences
through action more than it acts on the basis
of preferences.
The second property is unclear technology.
Although the organization manages to sur-
vive and even produce, its own processes are
not understood by its members. It operates
on the basis of simple trial-and-error proce-
dures, the residue of learning from the acci-
dents of past experience, and pragmatic in-
1 We are indebted to Nancy Block, Hilary Cohen,
and James Glenn for computational, editorial, and
intellectual help; to the Institute of Sociology, Uni-
versity of Bergen, and the Institute of Organization
and Industrial Sociology, Copenhagen School of Eco-
nomics, for institutional hospitality and useful dis-
cussions of organizational behavior; and to the Ford
Foundation for the financial support that made our
collaboration feasible. We also wish to acknowledge
the helpful comments and suggestions of S0ren
Christensen, James S. Coleman, Harald Enderud,
Kare Rommetveit, and WiUiam H. Starbuck.
ventions of necessity. The third property is
fiuid participation. Participants vary in the
amount of time and effort they devote to
different domains; involvement varies from
one time to another. As a result, the bounda-
ries of the organization are uncertain and
changing; the audiences and decision makers
for any particular kind of choice change
capriciously.
These properties of organized anarchy
have been identified often in studies of orga-
nizations. They are characte ...
Ethics in Budgetary Decision Making
A paper my academic colleagues and I wrote while MPA students at The University of Oklahoma.
Bending the Arc of North American Psychologists’ Moral Univers
Bending the Arc of North American Psychologists’ Moral Universe
Toward Communicative Ethics and Social Justice
Richard T. G. Walsh
Wilfrid Laurier University
Social contextual and social justice perspectives on North American psychologists’
conceptions of ethical ideals and prescribed practices show that interpersonal, organi-
zational-institutional, and sociopolitical systems are dimly represented on our moral
landscape. In this critical review I first examine conceptions of ethical decision-making
from cognitive and interpersonal angles, noting the operation of nonrational phenomena
and conversational processes and promoting a communicative conception of ethical
decision-making. Next, I consider how the discourse on the concepts and practice of
ethics addresses both the social conditions of our employment and the challenges of
maintaining professional-personal boundaries on ethical conduct. Lastly, I assess the
ways in which psychologists discuss ethical issues that arise from our espoused
commitments to enhancing human welfare, responsibility to society, and social justice.
I argue that certain historical trends in psychology’s culture reduce our moral vision of
practicing the principle of justice to social reforms that sustain the status quo. I
conclude by questioning how we can shift the transit of our ethical discourse and
practice toward communicative ethics and social justice.
Keywords: ethical decision-making, Habermas, communicative ethics, organizational-institutional
influences, social justice
It seems likely that most North American
(i.e., Canadian and U.S.) colleagues believe that
we psychologists behave ethically in our re-
search, educational, professional, and commu-
nity endeavors despite the embarrassment to our
discipline of some psychologists’ ethical mal-
feasance, such as participation in torture (see
Teo, 2015a). But taking ethical responsibilities
for granted could lead to their marginalization
and invoking them chiefly when a possible so-
ciopolitical transgression, professional ethical
dilemma, or institutional review of a dubious
research project occurs. Instead of central to our
identity as scientific and professional psycholo-
gists, ethics can seem peripheral to our worka-
day worlds (Prilleltensky, Rossiter, & Walsh-
Bowers, 1996), reducible to a recitation of
standards that demand adherence. A different
view is that all aspects of our vocation are pro-
foundly moral, ethical, and social. That is, princi-
ples and practices of ethics, which are historical
constructions, are enacted in the context of in-
terpersonal, organizational-institutional, and so-
cietal systems and particular cultural traditions.
Accordingly, our principles and standards for
ethical conduct, as well as our conduct itself,
should reflect critical consciousness of the so-
cial-contextual phenomena saturating ethics.
In this spirit, and from my perspective as a
Canadian contributor to the literature in critical
psychology (Teo, 2015b) ...
The beer game - a production distribution simulation
A presentation by Michael D. Ford CFPIM, CSCP, CQA, CRE, CQE, Principal, TQM Works Consulting, USA delivered during the 38th annual SAPICS event for supply chain professionals in Sun City, South Africa.
The Beer Game was developed by Jay Forrester at MIT’s Sloan business school in the early 1960s. It is a simple yet realistic simulator of the supply chain and is used as a teaching tool for systems dynamics. It has been played all over the world by thousands of people ranging from high school students to chief executive officers and government officials. Each participant plays a role in the production and distribution of a product, in this case “beer”.
Systems Thinking for Product Managers
Keynote for the Mind The Product Engage Conference in Hamburg, 28 April 2017
Similar to Brittany Benson Comm 303 Assignment 2 (20)
Michael D. Cohen, James G. March, andJohan F. OlsenA Gar.docx
Michael D. Cohen, James G. March, andJohan F. OlsenA Gar.docx
Bending the Arc of North American Psychologists’ Moral Univers
Bending the Arc of North American Psychologists’ Moral Univers
Introduction To The Field Of Organizational Behaviour
Introduction To The Field Of Organizational Behaviour
The beer game - a production distribution simulation
The beer game - a production distribution simulation
Brittany Benson Comm 303 Assignment 2
- 1. Brittany Benson COMM 303 Information Systems Approach Theorist: Karl Weick