Decision-Making Process Paper Accidents, in any work place, are disheartening. This is especially so when it happens in incidents that involve more than one person. Such is the case for the mine in Chili where 33 workers (Moore, 2009) were affected by unsafe working conditions. A person has to wonder if this is due to the conditions of the country, a supposed less fortunate type, or just plain misfortune.
Those Involved Often times many wonder who it is that might be at fault, and who is it that really suffers in a time of crisis, especially when regarding a work mishap. When the reality is all crisis situations involve everyone, more so when more than one person is involved. Miners need to know what they do matters, not just for the paycheck, but to those they are earning the paycheck for. Mine owners need to know business will pick-up and continue shortly, losing no real revenue for the mishap. Families are only concerned about one thing, the safe return of their loved one. Quite a different gambit of involvement, yet none are more important to the other in the eyes of those involved.
Important Messages Of all those involved, families are probably the main focus. One has to wonder just the right way to communicate with so many people, of differing backgrounds, to give the same message. Should the message be given to the group of loved ones, or should this be relayed one-on-one? Considering the magnitude of the situation, a group message seems appropriate; otherwise, differing nuances might create a platform for serious misinformed recipients relating with incorrect information. Families need some type of reassurance. While they may really feel the impending doom of the situation, hope is what carries them through to the outcome. “The key to effective communication is the shared understanding of the information (Cheesbro, 2010).” Knowing your audience is critical if information is to be shared and mutually understood.
More than Family Often times, employees feel as though their places of employment are their “extended” families. This rings especially true during times of tragedy. The company, therefore, feels a sense of complacency, unsure of whom their allegiance lies with. The company asks themselves if they should side with the business side of things, or should they involve themselves with the moral implication; the family? This means another entity is involved; the company.
Conclusion
“Before we can evaluate an argument, we must understand it (Moore, 2009).” This quote is an important lesson when addressing two sides of a situation in business; the professional and the personal. Both sides have arguments, whether pro or con. Regardless, the key is to understand both sides. In the case of the tragedy that occurred at the Chilian mine, both humanitarian and business matters were faced by the Minera San Esteban Primera company. In order for them to address any audience, they needed to understand them.
References
Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S. A. (2011). Management: Leading & collaborating in a competitive world (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.