Virtues usually help people do good, but when they do not help, people must violate them for the sake of the principle. Franklin would argue that virtues are not the core of morality, but, doing good is the core. Therefore, people must sometimes sacrifice their virtues if it is necessary to achieve morality. Franklin uses his guidelines in this flexible way because he is a reasonable and practical person. If Franklin strictly followed his guidelines all the time, it would be unproductive and inefficient.
And with the theory of Maslow's basic needs that must be met first. To sum up, all this theories has advantages and disadvantages but this different from country to country . In my opinion the best theory is ERG theory because it does not use specific rule or sequence to met the needs of people.
He comes to this conclusion by labelling problem-solving theory as conservative and value bound to the prevailing order. His harsh criticisms leave the (allegedly unintended) impression that it is a “distinctly second-rate activity” (Brown, 2016: 47). He dismisses problem-solving theory as not value-free because of its ideology and biased perspective, but this implies that critical theory is not ideological and based on a particular perspective, which then disproves his original claim on theory (Brown, 2016: 48). Although Cox does not deny the importance of
The other reason for the need for employees with high emotional intelligence is because of the impact of the concept on organizational success. Conclusion: Emotional intelligence has emerged as an important concept in the modern business environment because it helps organizations to achieve much more as compared to having intelligence quotient and technical skills. As evident in several studies, this concept is strongly linked to company success because of its direct effect on the bottom line. Unlike intelligence quotient, emotional intelligence deals with understanding one’s and others emotions and using them to develop good personal relationships in the workplace. Employers have increasingly demanded for employees with EQ because of its impact on company success and changes in the contemporary business environment.
On the other hand, scholars have endeavored to improve service quality. Their models that conceptualize service quality improvement included the disconfirmation, perceived quality, SERVQUAL, and Six Sigma (Kasper, Helsdingen, and Gabbott, 2006:183). Additionally, Ahmed and Rafiq (2002:13) spelled out two other models namely Berry's model and Grönrros' model, but placed them within the context of the internal marketing theory. However, the preceding models perceived service quality from a narrow perspective; none have had a holistic view of quality. This explains the inconsistency in conceptualizing service quality where the perceived service quality endured to measure customers' satisfaction in particular.
However, while the functions that Fayol regarded as the most important elements of managerial work are not what can be observed from managers’ day to day activities, Mintzberg made some problems in his method of study to find out the nature of management. Also, while Fayol failed to draw a picture of management work in reality, Mintzberg was unsuccessful in giving an idea about what managers should do to be successful and effective. To some extent, Fayol and Mintzberd did not develop competing theories but theories about different dimensions of managerial work. In terms of gaining effectiveness in management, Fayol was performed better by indicating what managers should do to rather than just responding to the pressure of their job as what Mintzberg described. Therefore, it can be concluded that Fayol’s work is superior to Mintzberg’s and the latter is of rather ineffective
Precautionary Principle: Is Needed in Order to Successfully Prosper Of course not everyone is in favor of using the precautionary principle because it is questionable as to whether or not it benefits or hurts businesses and people. The precautionary principle “is intended to address credible yet uncertain hazards with severe or irreversible consequences and presumes that information is incomplete or highly variable, making traditional regulatory policy making difficult” (Carlock). This principle could be useful in the fact that it could prevent hazardous instances from occurring. However, individuals could take this principle too far by making it so that businesses unable to startup. An individual could make up a reason as to why a business should
Furthermore, it indicates that lack of performance incentives shows weak organizational objectives, behaviors, structural arrangement (Gabris & Giles, 1983). The importance of performance incentives have a dramatic influence on an organization yet it so simple that it may be dismissed. Usually, salespeople get commission for their performance. This could have been the reason why Dick did so well but we are not entirely sure. Performance incentives can solve Dick’s troubles however, without more information we cannot dive deeper into the issue.
Besides deontology’s forgetfulness of consequences, it also has other unforgivable flaws. Kant clearly states that you can only be a good person if you do good actions strictly out of duty, and nothing else. I don’t believe this is true. While an individual may find happiness from doing a good action, it does not mean they are a bad person. In fact, I would say finding happiness from a good action would make a person better than if they were only doing the action for a duty and because they felt they had to.
Simply, moral terms therefore do not describe some objective state of affairs - but are reflections of personal taste and preference. Hence the statement above, which refers to both `doing good' and `doing bad' are not universal imperatives - but reflections of the specific intentions and desires of the contract and the individuals involved. Furthermore this raises the issue, as to whether one can do good or harm anyone who was done so to ... ... middle of paper ... ...ng surprising here: it is tough making it alone and so there are good reasons why humans will do better if they do co-operate with others. But does this prove that co-operation is just another form of selfishness that we care only about our own interests and we co-operate in order to further those interests? In effect an answer to this depends entirely upon the individual; such an ambiguous statement undoubtedly entails a great difference in answers and interpretation.