Introduction
The decision making mantle in an organization is placed under the management. The top administration has the responsibility of making general decisions that have significant effect in an organization. However, this mantle is not solely under the management. The process of decision making should be constructed from the departmental heads. Decisions that may affect department are generated from decision generated from the departmental level. Generally, the decision making process should include all the parties and stakeholders in the organization under the command of the top administration. This enables for a well inclusive decision generated to fit the solutions needed for the smooth running of the organization in all fronts.
One of the most significant tools used in an efficient decision making is the application of the decision tree (Banfield, 2012). A decision tool is a tool whereby many solutions to a pressing issue are scrutinized to be able to come up with the best viable solution. In implementing this strategy, the management should develop many viable options with the help of the appropriate groups and departments. According to Anderson (2006) the decision tree is also used to develop the viable options that a management may use in coming up with the most appropriate decisions.
In the case of Allied and John Campbell, the decision making process should be in line with the terms and condition as stipulated in the contract. The laws in an employment contract protect the both parties in case of any uncertainties. These laws are fully applied when the parties fail to come to an agreement and the case is filed as a law suit. In the laws, an employer is governed with the responsibility of compensating an employee in any case of an accident. The employer also has the responsibility of paying for the negligence of the employee. The employer is also liable for any injuries caused on an employee while the in the line of duty. In words by Boston University (2012) the case is not similar if an employee is not directly contracted by the employer.
In the case of John Campbell Vs Doug Reynolds, it can be easily argued that the employer in this case is liable for the harm caused by the plaintiff. Regardless of the employer being an independent contractor, there is solid evidence that there was an instance of negligence form the employer. However, with no law suit filed yet, the employer has the chance to agree in an informal settlement away from the scale of justice.
John Campbell has requested for $750,000 in order to settle the claim. However, the employer is reluctant to pay this full amount and has opened room for negotiation. There two viable options the management might consider in this particular case. One option is to wait for the plaintiff to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the management neglected their duty to inform the plaintiff on the risk in its infrastructure. The other option would be providing a counter offer to the plaintiff. From the decision tree, the management is advised to consider the option of offering the counter claim to the plaintiff. For the first offer the management has opted to give the plaintiff with $400,000. However, their lawyer told them the probability of the plaintiff accepting this offer is almost nil. The lawyer provided the management with another offer of $600,000 from which the plaintiff had 0.5 probabilities of accepting the offer. The analysis from the lawyer is important in the formulating of the final decision. However, if this option fails to be successful, the plaintiff may opt to go for a law suit which may cost the offender the original claim of $750,000.
In this analysis, the decision tree could be helpful in generating the best option to deal with this case. By the application of the decision tree, the two possible options of solution would be weighed effectively.
Recommendation
In my recommendation, the offender should weigh the options and the consequences of taking each viable option. Before letting the case be decided by the law, the offender should analyses the probability for the case ruled in their favor. This occurrence is not predictable I their direction. This means that the best viable option is to consider a counter offer to the plaintiff. However, before agreeing to a specific value, Allied should wait for the reaction of the plaintiff in terms of the value of compensation.
Conclusion
In this case, it is an obvious assumption that the company is answerable for the injuries caused to this particular employer. The company should consider the compensation of the employee. According to Kramer (2012) this would be much easier since the company has an insurance scheme that covers such uncertainties.
References
Anderson, D. (2006). Chapter 13: Decision analysis. In D. Anderson, Decision making (pp. 601-656). New York: Cengage Learning.
Boston University. (2012, November 28). Week 4 - lecture 7 and 8. Boston University . Boston: Boston University.
Kramer, J. (2012). Decision making process. Journal of Management , 6 (2), 71-76.
Paul Banfield, R. K. (2012). Introduction to Human Resource Management. London: Oxford University Press.
Appendix A: Decision tree
Fig. 4.2
