联系我们
我们只做按需定制化代写服务,绝对原创!
QQ:41806229 点击这里在线咨询代写
Email:admin@assignment.cc
网  址:http://www.assignment.cc/
支持Paypal、VISA、MasterCard、Discover等银行卡支付
Paypal支付
代写essay,Decision Making Recruitment
发表日期:2013-09-22 08:54:09 | 来源:assignment.cc | 当前的位置:首页 > 代写essay > 正文
Decision Making Recruitment
Decision making. We all engage in it, and we all want to be good at it. It is woven into our fabric like breathing. You engaged in a few today already. And you engaged in it when you chose to read this paper. And you engaged in it when you chose to read up to this point. It is the only true master we all serve. But what is decision making really? Is it just some brain states about a particular issue? I leave this for the philosophers to mull over.
Complete freedom from decision making is death. Hammond et al. (1988:137, cited by Laureate Online Education, 2008:9) states that In the past, decision makers have relied mostly on instinct, common sense, and guess work. Most decision makers still do. Vecchio(2006:184-187) discusses two models of decision making - classical and administrative - and three group decision making approaches - interacting groups, nominal group technique(NGT), and Delphi technique. But when you decided to put on that red dress, white shirt, or blue tie this morning, to take the bus, to wink/smile at a total stranger, to make/offer your colleague/boss a cup of tea, did you apply any of these models or techniques? Or when you and your partner decided to meet up for lunch at your favourite sushi restaurant, were any of these models or techniques at work? I suppose not.
In this paper, I shall analyze the recruitment process at my company using these decision making models and techniques. My company is UK-based although it has subsidiaries in other parts of the world. To keep this paper short, I shall limit my discussion to the UK context. I shall further comment on the recruitment process and briefly discuss the factors I think differentiate good decision makers from poor ones.
The recruitment process
The decision making here is one of the most important decisions for any company. Second I think only to what goods and services to produce that customers most want. Getting the right person into the right role is crucial. You get this wrong and you could be in big trouble. Recruitment costs will hit the roof and the company could soon find itself out of business. So keeping these (indirect) costs down is important.
Not only is the cost of hiring a company concern, you may find that once the person has been hired, getting rid of them or modifying their contracts may not be so easy. (See for example Willow Oak Developments (WOD) v Silverwood (S) & ors 2006, where WOD wanting to prevent staff taking customers to competitors decided to vary existing employment contracts. S and other employees, having been sacked, sued WOD claiming unfair dismissal. Or Draper (D) v Mears Ltd (M), where D, having been sacked for gross misconduct, brought an action claiming M did not follow the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedure.)
The decision to hire cannot therefore be taken lightly. The process of hiring is not just time consuming and costly, but stressful. And there is the added threat that if you get this wrong, you could invite the long arm of the law into your company. Especially with the recent widening of discrimination legislation (in the UK), decision making during the recruitment process has become even more crucial.
So what goes on in my company? Recruitment in my company now takes place as per our new recruitment policy, modified to include all protected groups (those with certain religious beliefs, those undergoing gender reassignment and those covered by age discrimination and disability legislations). It is fairly long and complex but I shall limit my analysis below to when the curriculum vitaes (CVs) leave Human Resources (HR) to a department and when the department sends a decision to HR. This process varies from department to department and manager to manager but the basic phases are:
CV filtering
CV review
Pre-interview
Interview
Post-interview
Decision
CV filtering phase
HR usually sends the CVs to the lead interviewer. This is usually the manager whose department has the job opening and often the person who provided the job description to HR. The lead interviewer goes through the CVs and selects the ones he or she wants to take forward or are worthwhile pursuing. This process is very subjective and there are no written guidelines (other than that the selection process should not violate general principles covered in the company recruitment policy).
It is unclear what decision making model the manager employs here. I can only suppose that he or she employs a bit of both models.
A look at the feedback sent to HR, for a number of CVs aside at this stage, confirms the conjecture that a bit of both models are employed, although the administrative model is clearly favoured. The reasons in the feedback include the following factors:
Salary expectations. (After all the manager only has a limited budget.)
A candidate's recent job is too dissimilar to the job they are applying for. This may mean the candidate may not hit the ground running and more time spent in training and hand-holding. (But of course the candidate could be a fast learner.)
The stage of the project for which the candidate is wanted.
CV is too 'sexed-up' or contained too many unexplained gaps.
A candidate's experience is too narrow or too wide. Or a candidate is too qualified or not adequately qualified.
A candidate may not fit in. This is usually further qualified by saying there may be a language or cultural barrier.
CV has too many 'we did' and not enough 'I did'
Given that for each job, there are usually about twenty or so CVs to sieve through and to narrow them down to five or six, it is reasonable to suppose that most managers use the administrative model. It is in the manager's interest to be rational (after all the person would be working for them, on their budget, etc.) but given the quality of information about the candidates in CVs, a manager purporting to use solely the classical model would be economical with the truth. (Fibbing or just exaggerating one's achievements is not an uncommon element of CVs.) It is more reasonable to suppose that bounded rationality (Vecchio, 2006:186) is at work here.
A candidate who has had a career path similar to the manager's is likely to be put forward. This bounded discretion (Vecchio, 2006:187) or representativeness heuristic (Kahneman and Tversky, 1980 cited by Vecchio, 2006:188) is a very common phenomenon in this phase.
It goes without saying that a manager uses many heuristics in deciding who is put forward and who gets rejected. For example, a heuristics could be that candidates who have been out of work for more than six months would be rejected (regardless of the reasons) or a candidate must know a particular programming language (even though there is sufficient time for a candidate to learn the language or a candidate knows another programming language of the language family.)
The output of this phase are CVs kept for further consideration (in the next phase) and feedback to HR. HR needs feedback for each CV just in case the candidate writes to them demanding feedback. (In fact, HR sends feedback to candidates even if they want this information or not.) And I suppose for their own internal quality control.
It is not uncommon for the manager to rope in 'trusted' team members to help out and give informal feedback to him or her in this phase. Strangely, this often takes place after 5pm or on Saturdays. (There is usually a promise of a 'free' round - on the manager - down the pub following this 'favour'.) This informal session - done either in a meeting room or on via emails - takes about an hour to complete. A member allows about three or four minutes per CV and it might be questionable whether this is enough but this initial impression is valued by the manager. (This phenomenon is susceptible to what Janis(1972) calls groupthink.)
CV review phase The manager sends the 'promising' CVs from the previous phase to two or four other team members. (The company policy stipulates that the total number of reviewers should be odd - at least three. This is so that if it came to a vote, a majority would be established.) Ideally, the 'trusted' team members should not be involved. In practice, they are. (There is no rule against this.)
Reviewers independently complete a CV review form for each CV reviewed. (The CV review form is derived from an HR template.
Each department has its own.) Completion of CV form entails assigning points against each factor (e.g. technical ability, educational background, etc.). The points on each CV are then totalled. If there is a tie, members vote. The totals (and result of the vote, if there was one) are then used to rank the CVs. All of this is conducted in a meeting room, in a conference call, in a video conference, or via email. This more structured approach is more akin to the NGT and Delphi techniques and avoids most of the problems associated with interacting groups.
Note that this is also unlike the 'strict' Delphi technique where decision makers never actually meet. I do not recall a scenario (or heard of an incident) where the 'strict' Delphi technique was followed.
The output of this phase is feedback(CV review forms) to HR. The CV review team is also the provisional interviewing team.
Pre-interview phase
This phase is to meet and decide how to conduct the interview - who should do what, how long it should take, who would be the lead interviewer, etc. It is usually quite brief (fifteen to twenty minutes).
It is also an opportunity for a member to remove themselves from the interviewing team. For example, they could be on holiday or away on business on the dates proposed. Or they could dissent because they were in the minority when a vote was taken. When this happens, it is a real headache and the fix is usually not pretty. Other employees generally get roped in just to make the numbers. They usually have neither the ability (interviewing techniques, sufficient knowledge of the role, and so on, to ask sensible questions) nor the enthusiasm or will to get this right.
(In one extreme case a new recruit - two weeks into the job - was asked to assist at an interview. Obviously being a very new broom and eager to please, she accepted. Two weeks in the job, she barely knew where the coffee machine was, let along appreciated the values and the importance the company placed on the interviewing process. She was scheduled to start induction the following week.) The output of this phase is feedback (proposed dates and names of interviewers) to HR.
Interview phase
The interview is largely conducted as agreed in the previous phase. But sometimes some members forget the script. The lead interviewer usually acts as moderator. Post-interview phase
This usually takes about five minutes. This is just to get first impressions. A quick check that none of the following was afoot:
Candidate was rubbish or bore no resemblance to the one on CV
An administrative error had occurred
Wrong candidate turned up because of a name mix-up
It was not worth continuing to the next phase. (Candidates sometimes make it clear during the interview that they are not interested in the job.)
If the decision is not to continue to the decision phase, the lead interviewer sends feedback to HR and the process is aborted.
Decision phase
This phase is quite similar to the CV review phase, except the form each interviewer completes is the interview form.
Comment on the process
As you can see, there is a lot of structure to our recruitment process. It resolves a lot of the personality issues that dog decision making in interacting groups. The issue of 'trusted' team members may result in groupthink, however. The process is very time consuming. Sometimes people do not take it seriously: it is not considered part of their day-to-day job and so it is left to last. I have been involved in CV reviews on Saturdays a few times because we needed to give a response to HR the following Monday.
There are some good intentions in the company policy. For example, to provide varying perspectives, the number of interviewers must be at least three. As mentioned earlier, this policy item is followed. But the problem here is the quality of the perspective. Lack of interviewing skills is also an issue. The company policy is pretty silent about the skill sets required by an interviewer. (Even well-intentioned questions - about sex, marital status, age, etc. - at job interviews may be construed as discriminatory according to consultancy Water For Fish, n.d.)
The process (reviewed every two years) has worked so far. We have not been sued yet. And in the last ten years, only one recorded incident of a new recruit leaving during the probation period because the job was not what they signed up for. But he had other characteristics: he did not just fit in. My view is that he was information-starved. The team regularly bonds in the 'second office' (pub) on Fridays. Although it is against company policy to discuss work in public places (e.g. pub) this is precisely where informal memos are exchanged. Not being a pub goer (for whatever reason) he was left out of this all important informal information loop.
An interviewer not given enough time to
prepare for the interview,
read the job description, analyze all the facets of what the job entails,
identify the task interdependencies,
seek clarification if the requirements of the interviewing task and/or job description are unclear. Making any sound judgement under these (time-constraint) conditions is not easy.
Factors that differentiate good decision makers from poor one
Good decision makers are open-minded. The validity of their decision making is not threatened by the halo effect (Vecchio, 2006:41), the sunk-cost trap (Hammond et al., 1998:50 as cited by Laureate Online Education, 2008:8), recency error or similarity error(Vecchio, 2006:216). I already mentioned an example of similarity error above where a manager favours a candidate because the candidate has a career path similar to his/hers. Recency error occurs when a decision maker bases decision on recent issues rather than considering all relevant factors that might affect the particular issue in hand.
Good decision makers do not feel pressured to rush their decisions. Perlow et al. (2002:931, as citedby Laureate Online Education, 2008:8) point out that fast decisions are not necessarily good decision.
Good decision makers are consistent. (But as Staw and Ross,1980 cited by Vecchio, 2006:190 point out, this characteristic has its problems. A Kantian unfaltering view could be a problem.) Good decision makers openly seek advice.
Good decision makers are prepared to accept responsibility for any outcomes and unequivocally acknowledge failure of earlier decisions.
Good decision makers spot and promote employees who exhibit a socialized need for power (over employees oriented towards personalized power).
A good decision maker, in short, shares a lot of the qualities of an effective leader: clear vision, a sense of mission or purpose; be convinced that it is the right thing to do and that it can be done, etc.
Conclusion
Now that I have analyzed and commented on the recruitment process, I feel a little embarrassed. I reviewed, approved and signed the process! It seemed reasonable at the time, honest. You probably guess what I am going to do now...
References
Janis,I. L. (1972) Victims of Groupthink. A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascos. Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin [581]
Laureate Online Education, (2007) MBASHR-MP-080110-04 Seminar Lecture 3 (Accessed: 17 January 2008)
Vecchio, R.P. (2006) Organizational behaviour: Core Concepts. 6th edition. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
Water For Fish, (n.d.) http://www.waterforfish.com/index.asp (Accessed: 25 January 2008)
Descartes, R (1644), Principles of Philosophy. Hobbes, T. (1651) Leviathan
Hume, D. (1748) A Treatise on Human Nature [online]. Available from: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/ToC/hume%20treatise%20ToC.htm. (Accessed: 25 January 2008)
Locke, J. (1690) Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Kant, I. Critique of Pure Reason [online]. Available from: http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/ (Accessed: 25 January 2008)
Nagel, T. (1974) What is it like to be a bat? [online]. Available from: http://www.clarku.edu/students/philosophyclub/docs/nagel.pdf. (Accessed: 25 January 2008)
Putnam, H. (1981) Reason, Truth, and History
Plato, (c. 375 BC) Book 7 of The Republic
Rawls, J (1971) A Theory of Justice
Ryle, G. (1949) The Concept of Mind
Turing, A. (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence [online]. Available from: http://www.abelard.org/turpap/turpap.htm#index. (Access: 26 January 2008)
Wikipedia, (n.d.) Decision making [online] Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making. (Accessed: 25 January 2008)
Wittgenstein, L (1889-1951). Tractatus
决策招聘
决策。我们都搞,我们都希望它好。它织成的面料就像呼吸一样。你从事了几个今天已经。你从事它时,你选择读本文。你从事它时,你选择读这一点。它是唯一真正的主人,我们的所有服务。但是,什么是真正的决策吗?它只是一些关于特定问题的大脑状态?在我离开这个哲学家仔细考虑。
从决策是完全自由死亡。 Hammond等人。 ( 1988:137 ,引得主在线教育, 2008:9 )指出,在过去,决策者大多依靠本能,常识,并猜测工作。大多数决策者仍然如此。桥( 2006:184-187 )讨论了两种型号的决策 - 古典和行政 - 三群决策方法 - 交互组,名义群体法( NGT ) ,德尔菲法。但是,当你决定把今天上午,红色的礼服,白色衬衫,蓝色领带,坐公共汽车,眨眼/在一个完全陌生的微笑, /提供你的同事/老板一杯茶,你有没有申请任何这些模型或技术?或者,当你和你的伴侣决定,以满足您最喜爱的寿司店吃午饭,这些模型或技术工作?我想不是。
在本文中,我将在我的公司在招聘过程进行分析,使用这些模型和技术决策。我公司是基于英国,虽然它在其他世界各地设有子公司。为了保持纸张的短,我会限制我的讨论就英国而言。我将进一步在招聘过程中发表评论,并简要讨论的因素,我觉得贫困的区分好的决策者。
招聘流程
在这里作出的决定是对任何公司的其中一个最重要的决定。其次,我认为只有什么样的商品和服务的生产,客户最想要的。让合适的人到合适的角色是至关重要的。你得到这个错误,你可以在大的麻烦。招聘成本会火冒三丈,公司很快就会发现自己的业务。因此,保持这些(间接)降低成本是非常重要的。
不仅雇用一家公司关注的是成本,你可能会发现,一旦该人已被录用,让他们摆脱或修改他们的合同可能不会那么容易。 (见例如尺发展( WOD ) v轩( S ) 2006年和ors , WOD要防止员工以客户的竞争对手决定改变现有的雇佣合约,S和其他员工,被解雇,声称不公平解雇状告WOD或德雷珀(D )V米尔斯有限公司( M),其中D,严重行为不当被解雇,提起诉讼,声称中号没有按照法定的解雇和纪律处分程序)。
决定聘请,因此不能掉以轻心。租用的过程中,不仅是耗时和昂贵的,但压力。且有增值的威胁,如果你得到这个错误,你可以邀请到您的公司的长臂法律。特别是随着近期扩大的歧视立法(在英国) ,在招聘过程中的决策变得更加重要。
那么,什么在我的公司?现在在我公司的招聘需要的地方,为我们的新的招聘政策,修改为包括所有受保护的群体(那些具有某种宗教的信仰,那些接受变性和那些年龄歧视和残疾法例所涵盖的) 。这是相当漫长而复杂的,但以下时的课程vitaes (CVS)离开人力资源(HR )部门当部门将决定人力资源,我将我的分析限定。此过程中不同部门和部门经理到经理,但基本阶段:
简历筛选
简历审查
面试前
访问
面试后
决策
简历筛选阶段
HR通常将个人简历发送到铅的面试官。这通常是部门经理的职位空缺和HR提供的职位描述的人常常。铅面试官通过CVS和他或她想要推展的追求是值得选择的。这个过程是非常主观的,有没有书面指引, (以外的甄选过程应不违反一般原则,在该公司的招聘政策覆盖) 。
目前还不清楚什么样的决策模型的管理员工在这里。我只能假设他或她采用了这两种模式的位。
看看在反馈发送到人力资源,一些简历,一边在这个阶段,这两种模式有点证实的猜想,虽然管理模式显然青睐。在反馈的原因包括以下几个因素:
期望月薪。 (所有的经理只有有限的预算后)。
候选人最近的工作太不同的工作,他们正在申请。这可能意味着,候选人不得旗开得胜花费更多的时间在训练和手控股。 (但当然的候选人可能会学得很快。 )
该阶段的项目,该候选人被通缉。
CV是太'粉饰'或包含太多的不明原因的差距。
考生的经验是太窄或太宽。或候选人资格或没有充分的资格。
候选人可能不适合说有可能是语言或文化障碍,这通常是进一步限定。
CV有太多“我们做'不够'我做'
鉴于每个作业,通常有大约二十岁左右的简历筛通过缩小下来到五六,它是合理的假设,大多数经理使用管理模型。这是经理的利益是理性的(毕竟人会为他们的工作,他们的预算等) ,但有关候选人的资料,个人简历,经理声称使用纯粹的经典模型将质量经济真相。 (撒谎或夸大一个人的成就,是不是一种罕见的元素CVS )是比较合理的假设,有限理性(桥, 2006:186 )在这里工作。
谁拥有了类似的职业生涯路径经理的候选人可能被提出。这界的自由裁量权(桥, 2006:187 )或代表性启发式( Kahneman和Tversky , 1980年引Vecchio桥, 2006:188 ) ,在这个阶段是非常普遍的现象。
不用说,一个经理决定谁提出,谁被拒绝使用许多启发式。例如,启发式候选人谁已经超过6个月的工作将被拒绝(不论原因)或候选人必须知道特定的编程语言(即使有足够的时间学习候选人语言或候选人都知道的语言家族的另一种编程语言)。
这一阶段的输出保持在下一阶段进一步审议( )和反馈人力资源简历。 HR需要每份简历的情况下,候选人写他们要求反馈的反馈。 (事实上​​, HR发送反馈给考生,即使他们想此信息或没有) ,我想为自己的内部质量控制。
这不是罕见的经理绳'可信'的团队成员助阵,并给他或她在这个阶段非正式反馈。奇怪的是,这经常发生在下午5点后或周六。 (通常是一个承诺 - 经理 - '自由'轮下来的酒吧后,这个'赞成' 。 )非正式会议 - 做到无论是在会议室或通过电子邮件 - 大约需要一个小时才能完成。一位成员允许每CV大约三四分钟,可能出现问题,这是否是足够的,但这个初步印象看重的是经理。 (这种现象是容易詹尼斯(1972)所说的群体思维。)
CV审查阶段管理器发送'有为'的简历,从前一阶段的两个或四个团队的其他成员。 (公司政策规定,应当是奇评论总数 - 至少有三个。这是这样,如果它来表决,多数将成立。 )理想的情况下, “值得信赖的”团队成员不应参与。在实践中,他们是。 (有没有对这种规则。)
独立评审,完成每份简历的审查简历审查表。 ( CV形式审查来自HR模板。
每个部门都有其自己)完成简历的形式,对各因素(如技术能力,教育背景等)需要分配点。每份简历上的点,然后玩儿完。如果有一个领带,成员投票。总量(表决结果,如果有的话) ,然后用于排名的简历。所有这一切都在会议室中进行,在一个电话会议,视频会议,或通过电子邮件。这更有条理的方法更像是NGT和德尔福技术,并避免与交互组的大多数的问题。
请注意,这是“严格”德尔菲法,从来没有真正满足决策者也不像。我不记得一个场景(或听说过的事件) ,其次是“严格”德尔菲法。
这一阶段的输出反馈( CV审查形式)人力资源。简历审查小组也是临时面试队。
面试前阶段
这个阶段是满足并决定如何进行采访 - 谁应做什么,应采取多久,会是谁牵头面试官,等它通常是相当短暂(十五至二十分钟) 。
这也是一个机会,把自己从采访队的成员。例如,他们可能是在度假或远离业务建议的日期。或者,他们可以持不同政见者,因为他们是少数股东进行表决时。当这种情况发生时,它是一个真正的头痛和修复通常是不漂亮。其他员工普遍得到拉拢只是为了让数字。他们通常有没有能力(面试技巧,足够的知识的作用,等等,要求合理的问题),也不热情或将得到这个权利。
(在一个极端的情况下,一个新的招 - 两个星期到作业 - 要求协助在接受记者采访时,显然是一个非常新的扫帚,急于讨好,她接受了两个星期的工作,她几乎不知道那里的咖啡机了,让我们一起欣赏价值和重要性的公司放置在面试过程。她计划开始感应在接下来的一周。 )这一阶段的输出反馈(建议面试的日期和名称)人力资源。
面试阶段
同意在前一阶段,主要是进行采访。但有时也会出现一些成员忘记了脚本。铅的面试官通常作为主持人。面试后阶段
这通常大约需要五分钟。这是刚拿到的第一印象。一个快速检查,有下列情形的,在进行中:
候选人是垃圾或孔毫无相似之处简历
行政错误发生
因为一个名字弄混了错误候选人
这是不是值得继续到下一个阶段。 (有时考生要清楚在接受记者采访时,他们不感兴趣的工作。 )
如果决定是不是要继续的决定阶段,铅面试官发送反馈到人力资源和中止过程。
决策阶段
简历审查阶段,这个阶段是非常相似的,除了完成每个面试官的形式是访谈的形式。
评论过程
正如你可以看到,有很多的结构我们的招聘过程。它解决了很多狗决策交互组的个性问题。 “可靠”的团队成员可能会导致群体思维的问题,但是。的过程是非常耗时的。有时,人们不把它严重:它不被视为他们的一天到一天的工作的一部分,所以它留给持续。我一直在参与CV评论上周六几次,因为我们需要给一个响应人力资源在下周一。
有一些好的公司政策的意图。例如,提供不同的角度,采访者的数量必须至少为三个。正如前面提到的,这个政策项目紧随其后。但这里的问题是质量的角度。面试技巧的缺乏也是一个问题。该公司的政策是相当沉默面试官所需要的技能设置。 (即使是出于善意的问题 - 性别,婚姻状况,年龄等 - 在面试时可能被理解为歧视根据顾问水的鱼,ND )
过程(每两年检讨一次)一直至今。我们还没有被起诉。而在过去的十年中,只有一个工作记录事件的一名新兵,在试用期内离开,因为不是他们签署了。但他还有其他的特点:他不只是适合我的观点是,他是信息匮乏。该小组定期债券上周五在“第二办公室” (酒吧) 。虽然它是违反公司政策的讨论工作在公共场所(如酒吧) ,这恰恰是非正式的备忘录交换。并非酒吧而去(无论何种原因) ,他被排除在所有重要的非正式信息循环。
面试官没有给予足够的时间来
准备面试,
阅读职位描述,分析的所有方面的工作需要什么,
识别任务的相互依存关系,
要求澄清,如果要求面试的任务和/或工作描述都不清楚。这些条件(约束)下的任何声音判断是不容易的。
区分好决策者的因素,从可怜的一
好决策者开明。决策的有效性没有受到威胁的光环效应(桥, 2006:41 ) ,沉没成本陷阱(哈蒙德等, 1998:50引得主在线教育, 2008:8 ) ,新旧程度错误或相似的错误(桥, 2006:216 ) 。我已经提到上述相似错误的一个例子,其中经理有利于候选人,因为候选人有类似他/她的职业生涯路径。近因时发生错误决策者根据最近的问题,而不是考虑所有相关的因素可能会影响手的特定问题的决定。
良好的决策者不感到有压力,急于决定。珀洛等。 ( 2002:931 ,网络教育作为citedby得主, 2008:8 )指出,快速决策,不一定是好的决定。
良好的决策者是一致的。 (但秸秆和罗斯,1980年引桥, 2006:190点,这一特点有它的问题,康德的坚定的观点可能是一个问题。 )良好的决策者公开征求意见。
良好的决策者正准备接受任何结果的责任和先前的决定毫不含糊地承认失败。
良好的决策者发现和促进员工谁表现出社会对电力的需求(超过员工面向个性化的功率) 。
总之,一个好的决策者,股很多一个有效的领导者的素质:明确的愿景,使命或目的感;深信这是正确的事情,而且是可以做到的,等等。
结论
现在,我已经在招聘过程分析和评论,我觉得有点不好意思。我审核,批准和签署的过程!这似乎是合理的时候,诚实的。你大概已经猜到我现在要做的...
参考文献
詹尼斯, I. L. (1972)受害者团体迷思。的心理研究外交政策的决策和惨败。马萨诸塞州波士顿:霍顿米夫林[ 581]
获得者网络教育(2007) MBASHR - MP - 080110 -04研讨会讲座3 (访问: 2008年1月17日)
Vecchio桥, RP (2006)组织行为学:核心概念。第6版。俄亥俄州梅森:汤森西南部。
水对鱼, ( ND ) http://www.waterforfish.com/index.asp (访问2008年1月25日)
笛卡尔, R (1644 ) ,哲学原理。霍布斯, T. (1651) “利维坦”
休谟, D. (1748 )伤寒论人性[在线] 。可从: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/ToC/hume % 20treatise的% 20ToC.htm 。 (访问2008年1月25日)
洛克, J. (1690)人类理解论
康德,一纯粹理性批判[在线] 。可从: http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/的(访问: 2008年1月25日)
纳格尔, T. (1974)是什么样子,是蝙蝠? [在线] 。可从: http://www.clarku.edu/students/philosophyclub/docs/nagel.pdf 。 (访问2008年1月25日)
普特南, H. (1981)理性,真理和历史
柏拉图(约公元前375年)第7册共和国
,J (1971)罗尔斯正义论
赖尔, G. (1949)的概念记
图灵, A. (1950)计算技术和情报[在线] 。可用: # http://www.abelard.org/turpap/turpap.htm指数。 (访问2008年1月26日)
维基百科(ND )决策[在线]可从http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making的。 (访问2008年1月25日)
维特根斯坦,L ( 1889-1951 ) 。逻辑哲学论