Analyzing Critical Thinking in Action … Essay
Pages: 5 (1576 words) | Style: n/a | Sources: 0
Critical Thinking in Action
This is a case study whose analysis is based on critical thinking.
"A critical thinker is able to deduce consequences from what he knows, and he knows how to make use of information to solve problems, and to seek relevant sources of information to inform himself" (Lau & Chan, 2015).
The procedure of basic speculation offers some assistance with weighing and confirming data, survey plan, and considering results; in this way empowering more powerful moral choice makingHereford proposes that critical speculation requires a specific outlook that incorporates having the capacity to:
Depend on thought rather than feelings
Evaluate an expansive scope of points-of-view and perspectives
Reflect on new confirmation, clarifications, discoveries, and option elucidations
Suspend individual partialities and predispositions
Consider all sensible potential outcomes
Keep off snappy judgments (Hereford, 2015).
The aim of this paper is to fundamentally dissect the accompanying situation:
On June 7, John Schmidt, one of the organization's workers, truly harmed his hand while pushing a substantial bit of wood through a surface found in the generation shop. The harmed worker guarantees that he kept all the organization's well-being techniques and that the organization is at deficiency since it didn't promise that the machine was as sheltered as could be allowed for use (Case Study Accident File). The organization's shop supervisor, David Donald, affirms that the machinery was safe for use, on the grounds that in the event that it hadn't been, the shop foreman, Harry Hiller, would have reported it to him. The foreman, Harry Hiller, claims that the machine was looked after appropriately; he has delivered the composed upkeep records. The foreman additionally asserts that preceding the mischance he saw the representative "clowning, snickering and messing about" with his associates. An associate backing the case of the harmed worker, claiming that in spite of consistent support on the table, he saw, it was not safe in light of the fact that the security watchman was ineffectively outlined and was unable to function efficiently. The colleague asserts that shop laborers educated the foreman about the issues with the security watch.
Background on Organization Problems
Singular representative issues can be identity clashes, administrator issues, individual injury, or organization structure location. Administration must take into account the reason for the issue and who or what continues "fueling the fire." If there is no unmistakable trigger, the answer could fall back to deficient or confounding correspondences (Pirraglia, n.d). For instance, a representative in a decentralized association might feel they should answer to numerous chiefs if the levels of leadership are not obviously imparted. To be high performing, groups must be committed to progressing in the direction of a concurred objective. Should they encounter individual detach with other colleagues, the group can get to be non-utilitarian. These issues frequently come from hierarchical or administration correspondence breakdowns that confound group and individual regular objectives. Top management must offer steady criticism and nurture togetherness. At the point when confronting group issues, chiefs must analyze the issue and make quick restorative move to keep away from more genuine execution breakdowns.
There is presently a disagreement about who is to be faulted for the mishap, the organization or the worker. A well-being and security report decided and reported that the security gatekeeper was ineffectively intended to secure administrators in various circumstances.
Analysis of the Information
With all the data introduced, the primary concern comes down to representative security and rate fault. At the point when taking a gander at this case, one needs to take a gander at what prompted John to express that the organization ought to be blamed for the wounds he got. At that point, David said that John ought not to accuse the association for the wounds. On John's side, he said the harm was a consequence of the machines' poor outline (Writer Thoughts). At that point, David asserts that the machine is impeccably fine and he would have been informed if there were any issues with it. Harry, David's partner, claimed that he observed John fooling around, which could have prompted the mishap. Along these lines, there is this entire habitual pettiness between John, David, and Harry. This could have been an incredible main consideration with respect to this working environment debate.
There are elective perspectives of the situation itself as fault is passed. John could at last claim that the organization is the one responsible for the wounds. This brings it down to what John ought to do. Presently, the situation can be flipped around. In the event that the business is not to blame for the wounds, what ought to be done to John then? Harry stated that the machine was as fit as a fiddle and in good condition (Writer Thoughts). Who ought to be accountable, if the machine was not in great working condition? John gets support from his partners that Harry was alerted concerning the condition of the machine yet he did not make any strides. Again, David asserts that Harry would have told him if there were any issues with the machine. Harry likewise guarantees that he could deliver proof that demonstrates that the machine received some kind of upkeep. Then again, David asserts that if the machine had any issues, he would have let Harry know. At the same time, Harry claimed that he had significant proof that could demonstrate that the gadget had gotten some support.
At that point, there is the well-being and security report. As specified before the report expressed that the guard for safety was ineffectively outlined and neglected to work the situation being what it is seen with John. In a way, this leads not far off to unwavering quality. John's cases of the organization being subject, to him, is not completely dependable in a manner of speaking (Writer Thoughts). The reason being that he knew about the machine's state. More caution ought to have been demonstrated by him with respect to the machine and on top of that, he ought to have promptly said something to the organization's administrator. The organization is likewise at issue with respect to dependability too. Harry insinuated that there was proof with respect to demonstrating that repairs had been effected on the machine. However, the report on safety repudiated that claim.
Personal/Summarized Conclusions and Decision
General correspondence appeared to be the enormous thing here. Correspondence is a standout amongst the most critical things with regards to organizations and associations. Poor correspondence inside of an organization can prompt things, for example, organization issue, and absence of trust among businesses and workers, in addition to other things. Harry might not have sufficiently given data with respect to the machine to the representatives, which at last prompted the mishap happening (Writer Thoughts). Feelings came into this situation too. Along these lines the organization needs an approach to take care of this issue. The organization ought to consider assembling every one of the workers together and chat with one another as a group. Harry, John, and David particularly require this. Willing to meet up and talk can decrease strain and strife they may have among one another. Rather than having all three alter themselves as individuals, the conduct and the occasions themselves ought to be centered around. We have to take a gander at the focuses where they concur and oppose this idea. We likewise need a conclusive arrangement to counteract struggle later on.
Critical examination of the problem displayed for this case, brought about the end of specific clashes amongst administrators and workers, and accordingly recommended proposed choices to diminish strife and strain. Also, in considering this case, it becomes clear that because of correspondence' disappointments, John's mischance happened. This drove him to thinking candidly and trusting the organization was in culpable for the harm he got. Along these lines, it is critical that any correspondence inside of the organization be done in a way that would guarantee proficiency. As a consequence of miscommunication, an accident happened. It is recommended that the organization has the supervisor assume responsibility and explain the issue. On the off chance that the administrator does not get it together on things or at the end of the day or chooses to do things at a moderate pace, the business falls flat. Over the long haul, the speedier the contention is taken care of, the better it is for everybody. Basic worker or group issues can rapidly grow to affect the entire firm, in the event that the supervisor does not make quick remedial move (Pirraglia, n.d). He should stay away from this circumstance no matter what, as it frequently brings about your staff framing two gatherings, both inconsistent with one another. Should all the supervisor's shirking activities fall flat, he should be prepared to take considerably more sensational restorative measures. He should therefore keep these issues from adversely altering the culture the company has deliberately developed so that the organization and work environment remain high performing.
Case Study… [END OF PREVIEW]
Cite This Paper:
APA FormatAnalyzing Critical Thinking In Action. (2016, March 12). Retrieved April 30, 2017, from http://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/analyzing-critical-thinking-action/3393658
MLA Format"Analyzing Critical Thinking In Action." 12 March 2016. Web. 30 April 2017. <http://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/analyzing-critical-thinking-action/3393658>.
Chicago Format"Analyzing Critical Thinking In Action." Essaytown.com. March 12, 2016. Accessed April 30, 2017.