Running head: CONFLICTING DECISION-MAKING PARADIGMS 1

Conflicting Decision-Making Paradigms

Gerardo Farley

South Texas College

CONFLICTING DECISION-MAKING PARADIGMS 2

The Problematic Scenario

The problem, in this case, is that one of my prominent and influential who has worked for

my organization for almost five years has applied for the other two positions within the

company. It has been difficult to reach the best decision concerning the matter even after

consulting some of my global class company managers. The main problem is that the

organization rules and regulations don’t accommodate such privilege to any of the employees.

According to the company procedures; all the applicants have no right to apply for more than one

position within the same company and at the same time, each applicant should be able to show

that they are willing to stay at that single position for a considerable period. This situation has

divided the organization into two major groups as some employees are demanding change in

terms of vacancy position while the other group claims divided roles will result in lower

performance for the organization. This paper will use two major conflicting decision-making

paradigms to solve this problem as a leader, that is, Plato and Aristotle's philosophical theories.

Two Conflicting Decision-Making Paradigms

One of the important leadership qualities most of the ancient philosophers attempted to

bring forward was Justice despite each of them having a different way to present his or her ideas.

According to Plato's philosophical theory of leadership, the ruling should always be perceived as

a skill and an ideal; he is, in short, to appeal to a harmonious functioning within the organization.

The conclusion based on Plato’s argument can also be related to the Leader-Member Exchange

theory whereas a leader, I have to come up with a strategy that will establish emotional, strong

trust and respectful relationships with all members of the society. Thus, it is evident the final

decision as per Plato is that the organization should give each member equal opportunity that

will adhere to the organization rules and regulations; this means that the employee should be
CONFLICTING DECISION-MAKING PARADIGMS 3

given more than one chance to work within the organization. In the other case, Aristotle's theory

states that leaders should always adhere to the organization's laws and rules to establish social

equality. This means that all employees should be equal and none of them deserves more roles

within the same organization. Thus, this employee should stick to his or her current position.

Reasons Behind These Deep Disagreements

Plato in his discussions doesn't endeavor to show up at a satisfactory oral meaning of

equity, rather he attempts to deliver the correct conviction by concentrating on the thing to which

the word alludes to (Karamanolis&Karamanōlēs,2016). Subsequently, Platonic exchanges

generally attempt to conceptualize and basically investigate convictions subject to equity. Plato

trusted in a network or society as one and the capacity of people corresponding to it for

accomplishing a model society. Aristotle was increasingly individualistic and had faith in

singular satisfaction as the primary capacity of people and their accomplishment by being

phenomenal in what they did and along these lines framing a model society or city.

Despite the fact that Plato and Aristotle concur on the idea of a perfect state, they despite

everything differ on more profound issues as Aristotle removed himself from Plato, who was his

guide, eventually. Plato utilizes the metaphor of the isolating line from a geometric point of view

to recognize the domains of information and reality and is a bigger piece of the purposeful

anecdote of the cavern (Takala 2018). Plato is persuaded that individuals resemble detainees in a

cavern, so restricted in our recognition that we are effortlessly pulled into bogus reality. Aristotle

recognizes that equity ought to be liable for sustaining the conviction that great life is dependent

upon all in the public arena in negligence to their social class . He gives the instances of majority

rule states which see equity as uniformity given by free birth and oligarchic states imagine equity

even within the sight of defilement and disparity in the dispersion of office, given by amassed
CONFLICTING DECISION-MAKING PARADIGMS 4

riches. A terrible government as per Aristotle was one that permitted one class to use political

force. What this implied is that the state would pass up an extraordinary pioneer with knowledge

and high qualities just on the grounds that he didn't have a place with the decision class

(Takala,2018). This as per Aristotle was terrible administration. Aristotle was of the view that a

decent government regardless of how contorted was to pay special mind to the average citizens'

welfare (Ciulla,2014).

This is an appraisal done in a "reality" setting, rather than an increasingly "sterile" testing

circumstance. The guidance and appraisal are both conceived out of circumstances from what

our life is truly similar to. For instance, rather than removing an aptitude from the setting of the

game, we would watch the ability in the game. The more the appraisal happens, "all things

considered", the more genuine it is. Understudy appraisal is lined up with national as well as

state physical training norms and set up grade-level results and is remembered for the composed

physical instruction educational program, alongside organization conventions. It incorporates

proof based practices that measure understudy accomplishment in every aspect of guidance,

including physical wellness. A decent government was hence just and kept up an equalization in

all state workplaces. This legislature was in a situation to have a constitution and force authority

exposing everybody to the law (Takala,2018). He was likewise of the view that lawgivers ought

to be the government officials administering the state for they realize what is simply (Barnes &

Griffin, 2019). Aristotle most preferred the refined type of government which pooled the

different excellencies of various pioneers into one government.

CONFLICTING DECISION-MAKING PARADIGMS 5
CONFLICTING DECISION-MAKING PARADIGMS 6

References

Barnes, J., & Griffin, M. (2019). Philosophia Togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome.

Ciulla, J. B. (2014). Ethics and leadership effectiveness. The nature of leadership, 302-327.

Karamanolis, G. E., & Karamanōlēs, G. E. (2016). Plato and Aristotle in agreement?: Platonists

on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry. Oxford University Press.

Takala, T. (2018). Plato on leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(7), 785-798.