Tasks in the Context of Action

This post began with another attempt to define the "roles" related to an action, but evolved into defining the tasks that are necessary to perform an action, according to its separate elements (situation, decision, action, and consequences). There may be some misuse of terms remaining in the information that follows.

Situation

When considering a given action, the roles in creating the situation seem to be little importance. To the decision, the situation is accepted as status quo - it exists independent of the decision at hand. However, there may be instances in which the preceding conditions have been created of affected by previous actions.

Even then, the present decision is unable to influence the situation, but the situation has a strong influence of the decision. But an individual who wishes to influence a decision may undertake actions for the sole purpose of influencing the decision.

The ethics of such actions are a separate consideration from the decision - specifically, the decision-maker does not "cause" a person to take action in advance of a decision, but it is rather the choice of the other party to undertake an independent action with a primary intention of affecting the decision to be made.

It can also be said that the application of formal authority is an attempt to modify the situation. The promise of reward or threat of punishment is a pre-existing condition of the decision, which is taken into account in the same manner as any other pre-existing condition. Whether the reward or punishment is actually administered is a consequence, and a separate decision of the influencer ... and for that matter, the decision to communicate a threat or promise is also a separate decision, made by the influencer.

There is also the potential to exert influence over a decision by misleading the decision-maker as to the nature of the situation. The action undertaken to mislead a person is separate from the decision, and the level of confidence a decision-maker places on a false representation (whether he should have trusted the report) merit further consideration, as does the question of whether a person who provides this information can be entirely objective.

Decision

The decision is a critical element in ethics: the individual who makes a decision is considered to take primary responsibility for the consequences of his decision. My sense is that there is one decision-maker for any given decision, and that the notion of a "group decision" is false, as the decision is made by one party, though others may participate in the process. I expect this to be argued, as the notion of a "group decision" is common - but this will be considered at another time.

Aside of providing information to the decision, which is addressed as part of the situation, there are individuals who attempt to influence the decision by participation in the decision-making process: suggesting the logic that should be applied, predicting the possible consequences, and otherwise providing information that is taken into account by the decision-maker.

Before the decision is put into action, there is a process of approval, in which other parties affirm the decision and indicate a willingness to commit resources to its execution. The latter is significant, as a decision is not made merely "to decide" but with the goal that the action decided upon will be undertaken, hence the refusal of any essential party to commit to the decision, and commit required resources to its execution, have significant influence over the decision-maker.

Action

Especially in organizational ethics, the individual who executes an action and the individual who makes the decision to act are often two different parties. The responsibility for the consequences is often shared between these two roles, though there is some argument over the degree to which responsibility applies.

In instances where the actor executes upon a decision made by another party, the ethics of his participation are primarily derived from his independent decision to comply with the orders he has been given. Compliance with an order does not usually exonerate the actor from bearing responsibility for the consequences, though it is generally considered to be a mitigating factor.

It's also worth noting that executing on a decision often requires additional decisions to be made. An order to build a bridge necessitates the executive to determine its design, obtain the materials, and coordinate the labor. These decisions may precipitate from his orders, but they are to be considered separate from the decision involved in issuing the order.

It's also worth noting that the decision to act is not made in an instant. There are few instances in which a commitment to undertake an action precludes the ability of an actor to cease activity at any time after it has begun. More often, there are constant opportunities to revisit the decision to act, and to desist in the course of action.

To return to the earlier concept of plurality, a group activity seems more plausible than a group decision - the members of a work crew much each contribute effort to achieve a goal. However, the decision of each member of the crew to apply himself to the execution of an action is an independent decision that he, alone, makes. In this regard, I presently make no distinction between an actor and an assistant, though I concede that additional consideration may discover significant differences in future.

Consequences

While I don't discount the possibility that there may be a role pertaining to the consequences of an action, I cannot immediately conceive of one. It would seem that the ability of the decision-maker and the actors to effect the consequences of an action are done during the time when the decision is being made and the actions are being undertaken. Once these have been done, the consequences are what they are.

The consequences of an action may necessitate further actions to be undertaken. This is of particular interest when the consequences are to be mitigated in arrears of an action that has caused harm or damage to be done, and there is said to be a responsibility to effect indemnity. But this becomes a separate decision, and a separate action.

However, in predicting the consequences of an action, it may be discovered that additional actions should be taken to guide the action or mitigate the consequences. The key difference is that this is done in advance of the action, rather than in arrears. An in that sense, any decision to include additional activities in a given action are part of the decision, rather than part of the consequences.

And in that sense, a person who provides information to the decision-maker about the possible consequences of an action that is under consideration is not acting in the context of the consequences, but is providing information in advance of the decision.

Even so, my sense is that isolating the task of assessing the consequences should be separated. While the implication is that the assessment will provide input into future decisions, the task itself is done in the context of the consequences, and possibly without an immediate intent to provide information to a specific future decision. I may revisit that later, but for the present, I will accept it as a "role."

Summation

In the consideration of the elements of action, a handful of tasks have been defined:

• Analyzing the situation
• Making the decision
• Influencing the decision
• Approving the decision
• Performing the action
• Assessing the consequences

Admittedly, I've switched channels from defining roles to defining tasks. My sense is that a "role" may include one or more of these tasks, and that the definition of roles may be arbitrary.

Business Roles: Laundry List

In my attempt to classify the parties involved or affected by business, I have generated a growing list of roles, which may be of use later. I'd like to record them for later consideration, but my sense is that much of this material is a work in progress - the list is not comprehensive, and the items in the list may my misidentified.

Ownership Roles

On of the characteristics of a business that sets it apart from certain other types of organizations is that the business is owned. However, it's not entirely clear to me what is meant by "owning" a business. It seems to encompass a number of things:

• Holding legal title to the assets of the business or an indirect claim against the assets of the business
• The ability to exercise or delegate authority pertaining to decisions that involve the assets of the business
• Being entitled to receive a share of the profits of the business

It seems that ownership is not a single role, as there may be owners who have some of these qualities, but not all of them. An investor, for example, may have a claim to the profits of a business but have no authority over decisions pertaining to the business.

Employee Roles

The role of the employee merits special consideration, as it is not the same as ownership or mere participation in the organization.

• The responsibility to make decisions or delegate the authority to make decisions, but only in areas in which the a higher authority (owner or superior) has delegated authority to the individual
• The responsibility to perform actions that are necessitated by business decision
• Being entitled to a compensation (wage, salary, commission, or retainer) in exchange for their participation in the organization but has no claim on the profits

Traditionally, employee roles are divided into specific roles according to the degree of authority: executive, manager, director, supervisor, worker. I'm not immediately certain that this is entirely accurate, or the best approach, but acknowledge that it is common.

It's also worth noting that employees are often differentiated from vendors, but I am presently unclear on the rationale for this distinction. There are some areas where there are differences, but they merit more detailed consideration than the present topic requires.

Vendor Roles

Vendors are considered to be separate from the business. A "vendor" is generally an individual or organization that provides goods and services to the business, but is not considered to be part of the business.

• The vendor is responsible to provide goods and services to the business
• The vendor may have responsibility for making decisions pertaining to the business, if this is part of the service they provide
• The vendor has autonomy in making decisions pertaining to the item provided to the business
• The vendor is entitled to payment in exchange for the goods and services provided to the business

It's generally accepted that a vendor is an outsider to the business, and the distinction is fairly reliable when a vendor sells material goods to the business. The line becomes blurred when a vendor supplies services to the business, especially consulting services, in which instance it takes on more of an "inside" role to the business. This merits further consideration.

Customer Roles

Customers to a business are those who purchase the products or services of that business. They are generally an individual or organization outside of the business, whose decision to buy from the business is independent.

• The customer is responsible for paying the business for the product or services received
• The customer is entitled to receive the good or service in exchange for this payment
• The customer has no authority to make decisions pertaining to the business
• The customer may be affected by the product purchased from the business

Some distinction is to be made between the customer of a business (the individual who tenders payment in exchange for a good) and the consumer of the product (the individual who consumes or uses the product purchased) - especially since the contract exists between the business and the customer, but not between the business and the consumer.

Community Roles

Aside of the roles described above, there are individuals who are members of the community in which a business operates and in which its products are used.

• Members of the community may be impacted by the actions of the business
• Members of the community have no direct role in the operations of the business
• Members of the community have no obligations to the business, nor does the business have any obligation to them.

It's noted that the "community" consists of companies as well as individuals, so in this way the competitors of a business are also members of the community, though in an economic rather than a geographic sense.

Absence of Role

While the purpose here is to define the various roles related to business, it also seems an opportune time to consider instances in which there is no role or relationship between an individual and a business.

Specifically, to claim there is no role, there is no relationship or interaction between the business and an individual, and the individual will not be impacted by the actions of the business. Which is to say that if either of those statements are not true, then there exists a role for that individual.

Business Roles: Classification

As a prerequisite considering the consequences of an action, it is desirable to identify and classify the various parties involved in a general sense, as a means to derive conclusions that have a broad impact. The core problem with many ethical systems is in the failure to consider the full scope of consequences, which often stems from considering only the effects pertaining to one category. Hence, it would seem that a more precise classification would lead to more reliable conclusions.

However, I've considered this at some length and have arrived at no conclusion. For any distinction, there are always gray areas, which would lead to uncertainty over whether a given individual or role falls into a given class of parties.

For example, the simplest distinction would be to determine whether an individual is "inside" or an "outside" a business. But this is not as simple as it might seem, as the criteria for being "inside" are unclear. It is not a matter of physical location (such that everyone on the premises is an insider), not is it a matter of authority and influence. So in the end, I have not been able to identify a single criterion that could be consistently applied.

From a perspective of ethics, the key considerations derive from actions undertaken: parties who have the authority to make decisions, parties who have influence without formal authority, parties whose are involved in the action precipitating from a decision, and parties affected by the consequences of the action. But even this is unclear, as a person who is in the role of "employee" may fall into all of those groups.

So in the end, I am presently unable to derive or accept a classification of parties that is sufficiently accurate, and will for the present proceed without classification until such time as I can arrive at a more acceptable definition, as an unsuitable classification will result in specious reasoning.