Management paradigm and management philosophy

 

Course	:	Philosophy of Management Science
Lecturer	:	Prof. Badia Perizade, M.B.A., Ph.D

Student	:
Student ID Number	:	01023622328001
Name	:	Erfan Robyardi
Study Program	:	Doctoral (S3) Management Science

Nudging smokers away from lighting up: A meta-analysis of framing effect in current smokers

Hassam Waheed

College of Business, Law and Social Sciences, University of Derby, Kedleston Rd, Derby DE22 1GB, United Kingdom

 

 Abstract

 

Should smoking cessation messages be framed in terms of gains or losses? While the risk-framing hypothesis suggests a persuasive advantage for gain-framed messages, empirical evidence so far has been mixed. In defense of the risk-framing hypothesis, researchers have suggested that the diversity of results in this literature stream can be attributed to differences in issue involvement. The present study examined these predictions by employing a meta-analysis (14 studies) comprising of a Correlated and Hierarchical Effects model with Robust Variance Estimation. There was a small persuasive advantage in favour of gain-framed messages (g = 0.104, SE = 0.049), but this contrast was not statistically significant (p = 0.070, CI95 = -0.011, 0.218). This finding is robust to the values of correlation between sampling errors of the effect sizes, influential outliers, and publication bias. Moreover, issue involvement proxied through nicotine dependence did not moderate the relative persuasiveness of gain and loss-framed messages in encouraging smoking cessation. The conclusion remains unchanged regardless of how nicotine dependence is measured and before and after controlling for study and participant characteristics. These results strongly cast doubt on the applicability of the risk-framing hypothesis that continues to guide research and public-health campaigns.

 

Journal Analysis Of The Management Paradigm and Management Philosophy

Like the Napoleonic wars, which bridged the transition from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century, the war of 1914-1918, though it has introduced new elements into the factors determining our national progress, has not by any means swept away the problems which marked the beginning and dogged the steps of the preceding century. It has given us new viewpoints ; it has defined hitherto obscured peaks in the social landscape ; but the broad features of that landscape, for the most part, remain the same.

 

We have travelled fast ; in a few years, as in the era of the so-called Industrial Revolution, we have covered the normal advance of fifty, but at any point in that advance we can easily see how comparatively slight have been the changes effected, and how much of what existed still remains. However ardently we may search for a new world, we are ultimately compelled to look for its foundations in the debris of the past. Now, as throughout history, we cannot escape from the great evolutionary law of continuity.

I take up at random a collection of papers on the industrial situation in 1914. What are the subjects with which the writer deals ? The causes of industrial discontent ; a national minimum wage ; co-operation and profitsharing ; the problem of the unfit ; the problem of unemployment ; efficiency in production the very subjects which are topics of discussion to-day. The seven years from 1914 to 1921, even though they cover the crowded epoch of the war, represent but a short span in the life of industry. Many of the prevalent writings, achievements and aspirations of our own day may be compared, for instance, on the political side, with the efforts of the Chartists of eighty years ago, and on the industrial side, with the theories and experiments of Robert Owen of a century ago. Theories have grown into certainties, small beginnings have swollen into vast movements ; tentative experiments have become accomplished facts. Changes have been effected rather by the ebb and flow of public opinion, sympathy and effort than by any new factors which have definitely redirected the flow of progress. Certainly new factors have been introduced electrical power, motor traction, new methods of production, fresh programmes of Labour emancipation, great advances in the framework of factory life but these have only become fully operative through the growing adaptability of public opinion to new conditions. Without the growth of public opinion, economic and political progress is slow. Indeed, such progress is only as fast as public opinion can run.

We cannot hope, then, to grasp the significance of the modern conditions of industry unless we have at any rate a rough idea of the evolution of its main features. " A review of the process of historical evolution," says G. M. Trevelyan, teaches a man to see his own age, with its peculiar ideals and interests, in proper perspective as one among other ages." Before we plunge into the paths and by-paths of to-day we should gain that perspective, for the raw materials of yesterday are indeed the finished products of to-morrow. It is not enough to look

at the one without the other. Nor indeed is it enough to survey one aspect of industrial life without viewing all. Before we can attempt to inquire into the philosophy of management, we must take a bird's-eye view of industry as a whole. Moreover, it is only the stern limit of space which forbids us to contemplate the entire panorama of the social life of which industry is an inherent part. In the past industry has suffered from too narrow a vision of itself. The worker has been regarded as a worker rather than a citizen. The vital relation of industrial production to the ordinary social life of the community has been obscured by years of comfortable complacency and moral respectability. Industry has been treated as incidental to rather than fundamental in the life of the community. Oliver Sheldon (1923:1)