Rest model知识点
offer什么意思-英语填空题
The stages of decision making
Five
stages can be identified in the decision making
process, the path from thought to action. We can
see
as separate moments of the process (i) a
felt difficulty, (ii) identification of what
factors are relevant, (iii)
evaluation, (iv)
formation of intention or commitment to action,
and (v) action. Some models include all of
them while others concentrate on one part of
the process and assume that the other parts are
'automatic'
or are taken care of by common
sense. Almost all models include a stage in which
information is
interpreted and evaluated. Not
all include the following stages in which (a) the
decision maker establishes
an intent to
implement the decision, and (b) implementation
occurs and what has been decided is actually
done.
These stages are directly linked to
types of ethical questions. We shall emphasise two
broad types of
questions. One type we shall
refer to as problems of identification, which take
in the first three stages
mentioned. Sometimes
these may be referred to as ethical dilemmas.
These are about seeing a need to
do something
and working out what it is. Another type are about
acting in accordance with what one has
worked
out. These we shall refer to generally as problems
of compliance. Sometimes, in individual
decision-making, they are problems of
character.
Activity
What decision making
models or processes have you come across in other
courses?
Which of the five stages do they
include? Do they assume that the problem is clear?
Or that
action is an automatic consequence of
decision?
There are two stages prior to
the evaluation stage. The first is recognising
that there is an issue requiring
decision. In
some cases the principal cause of unethical
behaviour has been the failure to recognise that
a situation of possible action might have
future consequences. Hence the importance of moral
imagination.
The second is to see or make
a decision about which values or principles are
relevant in the decision
making process. This
is left out in many models, presumably on the
basis that it is obvious or a forgone
conclusion, but it can be a source of
confusion and disagreement when ethical decisions
are being made.
A professional accountant, or
a lawyer, employed by a large corporation or a
government department has
accepted certain
obligations as a member of the profession. There
are also obligations as an employee. If
these
conflict, which set of guidelines are to apply?
Similarly if one person is making decisions using
an
rule-based approach while a colleague is
using a results-based approach, there could be
confusion—lots
of heat and little light—if
this is not clear. Some authors suggest a distinct
pre-evaluation stage is closely
related to
this which involves the commitment to the use of
the selected set of rules, guidelines or values
in the evaluation stage.
Rest's model of
ethical decision making
The basic model of
ethical decision making that is used in this
course is based on the work of James Rest
(1994, see especially p. 23). Rest's model has
been adapted or added to by Jones (1991) and by
Treviño
(1986). Although it is presented in
linear form, it is consistent with the 'limited
rationality' approach to
management decision
making (March & Simon 1993) and the 'garbage can'
model (Cohen, March &
Olsen 1972).
The
fact that we identify separate stages and show
them in a linear relationship should not be taken
to
imply that the stages necessarily occur
separately or one after the other. The
relationship between stages
is a logical
relationship, not necessarily a chronological
relationship (although the stages may occur in
sequence on some occasions). In this course it
is also important to bear in mind that the model
is not only
24
applicable to
decision-making by individuals; it may also apply
to organisations like corporations and
government departments.
This model is one
of the basic building blocks for this course and
in topics below there will be sections
about
how the material in each topic links to the
decision making model.
The first stage is what
Rest refers to as ‗interpreting the situation‘.
Recognising that there is a moral issue
requires ‗moral sensitivity‘, in his terms, or
what others may refer to as ‗moral imagination‘.
In terms of the
approaches we outline below,
it may be a matter of seeing that there may be
good or bad effects on other
people, or that
they have rights that may be violated, or
something like that. This stage of Rest‘s model,
seems to put together the first two of the
five stages mentioned above (we could reflect upon
why it may
do so).
The second stage is
that of ‗moral judgment‘. This is judging what
action is right or wrong. In our
discussion
below of approaches to ethical decision making
this is a stage which will receive a good deal
of discussion, as it does in most books and
discussions about ethics. It may involve some
decision about
what factors are appropriate to
take account of, but also some decision about how
these factors compare
with one another. Like
the first stage, this may also include what some
authors refer to as ‗moral
imagination‘.
The third stage is what Rest refers to as
‗moral motivation‘. Including it as a separate
stage recognises
that there can be a gap
between cognition and volition, that is, between
understanding or judgment, on
the one hand,
and between deciding, intending or ‗will-ing‘, on
the other hand. The failure to move from
judgment about what is right to an intention
to do it might be explained in various ways, such
as the agent
considering other reasons or
values to be more important than moral ones.
Selfish reasons might be one
example. Another
example, suggested by Rest (1994, p. 24) is
Hitler‘s ambition:
Hitler could not be
deterred by ‘bourgeois morality’ in pursuit of the
Reich that would last 1,000
years. The Reich
was more important than morality. Another morality
completely compromised
moral values.
The
fourth stage, ‗engage in moral behaviour‘ takes
account of the possibility that even after forming
an
intention to act a person might fail to
carry it out. Rest (1994, p. 24) says of this
stage that ‗if the person
wilts under
pressure, is easily distracted or discouraged, is
a wimp and weak-willed, then moral failure
occurs because of deficiency in Component IV‘.
At this stage a number of points should be
noted about this model:
The stages are
distinct; success in one stage does not imply
success in any other stage. A person with a
well-developed sense of moral reasoning (stage
2) will not necessarily have great resolve to act
morally
(stage 3).
The model is valid
regardless of the value set of the decision maker.
In terms of approaches we shall
discuss in the
following Topics, it is a process that can be used
to make decisions using the golden rule,
the
ten commandments, or the mafia code as the
decision rule, and it can also be used to make
decisions
using the utilitarian or
consequentialist (results-based) approach.
The
model recognises the importance of moral
imagination, for without it one may not be able to
recognise that there is a moral issue to start
with, or to identify those who might be affected,
and moral
imagination may also figure in stage
2.
In organisations both situational and
individual factors affect decision making. This is
Treviño's addition
(1986). She lists three
situational factors—the nature of the job itself,
the immediate context in which the
25
job is performed, and the broader
organisational culture—and three individual
factors—ego strength, field
dependence and
locus of control—which 'moderate' the relationship
between a person's appreciation,
understanding
or cognition of an ethical dilemma or incident and
the way in which that person acts in
response.
The model is issue contingent. This means that
the characteristics of the ethical issue influence
the
decision making and the behaviour. This is
Jones's addition (1991); he calls it 'moral
intensity'. Layoffs in
a person's work unit
have greater proximity (and hence intensity) than
do layoffs in a plant in a distant
country,
releasing a drug that will cause 15% of users
acute nervous reactions soon after they take it
has
greater intensity than releasing a drug
that will cause 15% of those who take it nervous
disorders after 20
years. One recent study
showed that about half of the variation in ethical
decision-making can be due to
moral intensity
(Paolillo & Vitell 2002).
The model runs from
recognition through to action. This is a reminder
that ethics is about practicalities,
about
management and daily life, and not confined to
esoteric argument of contentious cases. It is also
a
reminder that all ethical behaviour is ‗a
personal encounter with circumstances‘ (Wolgast
1992, p. 76),
that there is an interplay
between the theory and the practice.
Overall,
we can depict the model in diagrammatic form like
this:
recognise moral
issue
moral intensity
make moral
judgement
establish moral
intent
engage in moral
behaviour
personal
and organisational factors
Summary 2.4
Decision making
James Rest‘s model of ethical
decision making has four stages: recognise moral
issue, judgement,
intent, and action. It may
be supplemented by including moral intensity and
personal and
organisational factors.
Activity
Log on to the course home
page. Send a biographical message to the
discussion group—who
are you, where are you
from, what are you interested in, how hard or easy
is it for you to get
computer and Internet
access, why are you doing this course.
If
you find an interesting article or TV program
during the week let us know. May be someone
else saw it and had similar (or different)
thoughts. Send a message to the Discussion Board
on the
web page.
26