46 resultados para taxonomic revision.
Resumo:
Objective To understand differences in the managerial ethical decision-making styles of Australian healthcare managers through the exploratory use of the Managerial Ethical Profiles (MEP) Scale. Background Healthcare managers (doctors, nurses, allied health practitioners and non-clinically trained professionals) are faced with a raft of variables when making decisions within the workplace. In the absence of clear protocols and policies healthcare managers rely on a range of personal experiences, personal ethical philosophies, personal factors and organizational factors to arrive at a decision. Understanding the dominant approaches to managerial ethical decision-making, particularly for clinically trained healthcare managers, is a fundamental step in both increasing awareness of the importance of how managers make decisions, but also as a basis for ongoing development of healthcare managers. Design Cross-sectional. Methods The study adopts a taxonomic approach that simultaneously considers multiple ethical factors that potentially influence managerial ethical decision-making. These factors are used as inputs into cluster analysis to identify distinct patterns of influence on managerial ethical decision-making. Results Data analysis from the participants (n=441) showed a similar spread of the five managerial ethical profiles (Knights, Guardian Angels, Duty Followers, Defenders and Chameleons) across clinically trained and non-clinically trained healthcare managers. There was no substantial statistical difference between the two manager types (clinical and non-clinical) across the five profiles. Conclusion This paper demonstrated that managers that came from clinical backgrounds have similar ethical decision-making profiles to non-clinically trained managers. This is an important finding in terms of manager development and how organisations understand the various approaches of managerial decision-making across the different ethical profiles.