Questions

Justification Report Part 2

Evaluation of Alternatives

Question 1

Georgia Power, an Atlanta-based company, dealt with racial discrimination through swift action where they engaged in swift and decisive action when the racial discrimination allegations were made. The company did not attempt to downplay the allegations but admitted the possibility of racial discrimination in the workplace. The company took swift and decisive action against the employees who were found harassing others based on their racial backgrounds. The company expressed sympathy with those who were victims of racial discrimination, which averted any feelings of hostility towards the company in terms of legal action against them (Wooten and James, 2004). This is an alternative solution to initiating policies against those found discriminating against other employees.

An alternative to the solution of providing safety procedures and policies is the example provided by United Airlines 747 near crash. When one of its airplanes blew out the door, the captain abandoned standard procedures and landed the plane safely (New Zealand Law Foundation, 2000). Therefore, safety policies and procedures are not enough. There should be breathing room for the employees to react according to circumstances that are novel and not covered by the procedures and policies.

Question 2 and 3

Under the importance to measure and report, the quick response to discrimination charges suggested as an alternative works effectively. It is easy to measure discrimination and report on it when employees cease to report on discrimination at the workplace. In allowing for novel circumstances as an alternative safety measure, this is difficult to measure and report since the company would not have prior experience with the novel circumstance that necessitates departure from standard policies and procedures.

In terms of the scientific acceptability, the first alternative to discrimination, which is to make sure there is quick and swift response, the employees could be subjected to surveys to measure scientifically whether the safety measures at the company are working. In the alternative to safety, which is allowance for novel circumstances, there is no possibility of measuring scientifically the noel circumstances, which would be new to the organization and demand departing from standard policies and procedures.

In terms of the feasibility criterion, the first and second alternatives on discrimination respectively are feasible since they would be applicable to most organizations. Punishing employees for discriminatory behavior and adopting safety mechanisms that allow for novel circumstances are doable for most organizations.

The usability criterion also validates both discrimination and safety alternatives offered. The employees can ascertain the usability of the alternatives since the results would speak for themselves. The outcomes of the two alternatives are clearly visible and therefore employees can ascertain their usability.

In the fifth criterion, the competing factor to discrimination, which is a slower response, is worse than the quick and swift response and therefore it is a better alternative. In the safety alternative, allowing for novel circumstances is better than the competing factor, which is to institute rigid policies and procedures, which would create indecision when novel safety situations arise.

Findings and Analysis

Question 4

The major discoveries that emerged from the evaluation of the discrimination alternative is that the response to the situation is more important than the actions in place, such as policies and procedures, to deter discrimination. When Coca Cola was accused of discrimination at the workplace, the company did not respond quickly, which created a media problem and a public relations problem (Unger, 1999). When policies and procedures are in place, they might help the companies manage its discrimination problems but when such problems arise, they should make quick responses in order to avoid negative public relations consequences.

The major discovery made in the safety alternative is that policies and procedures might help create a feeling of safety but they might not cover novel situations where the safety policies and procedures cannot apply. The organization should therefore leave room for novel circumstances and continually update their safety policies and procedures to cover the emergent circumstances that they might not have foreseen (Baker and Sinkula, 1999).

Question 5

Figure 1

Criteria	Policies Option	Quick Response option
Importance to Measure and Report	High	High increase
Scientific Acceptability	Moderate	Negligible increase
Feasibility	High	High increase
Usability	High	High increase
Comparison to Competing Factors	High	High increase
TOTAL Feasibility* of Alternatives based on Criteria?	High	High

Figure 2

Criteria	Procedures and Policies	Novel Circumstance Allowance
Importance to Measure and Report	High	Negligible increase
Scientific Acceptability	High	Negligible increase
Feasibility	High	Negligible increase
Usability	High	Negligible increase
Comparison to Competing Factors	High	Negligible increase
TOTAL Feasibility* of Alternatives based on Criteria?	High	Low

References

Baker, W., and Sinkula, J. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning

Orientation on organizational performance. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 411-427.

New Zealand Law Foundation. (2000). Health & Safety at Work: All practicable steps and the

current state of knowledge. Retrieved May 6, 2015 from

www.webresearch.co.nz/morphfolia/filelistings/healthsafetyatwork.pdf

Unger, H. (1999). Discrimination lawsuit: Coca-Cola accused of companywide patterns. Atlanta

Journal-Constitution, H1.

Wooten, L. and James, E. (2004). When Firms Fail to Learn: The Perpetuation of Discrimination

in the Workplace. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(23), 23-33.