本文的主要內容是促使風險升級的因素，兩個主要因素促使風險升級。主要是經理或決策者可能會將風險升級，因為他們想要展示自己的能力。他們可能已經做了一些早期的決定，現在他們可能想要證明他們早期的決定是合理的(Hayes, 2014)。決策者會想要不惜一切代價保護他們的形象，並想要證明他們在選擇策略時沒有錯(Beshears， & milk kman, 2011)。本篇代寫essay文章由英國論文通AssignmentPass輔導網整理，供大家參考閱讀。
Two major factors motivate the escalation of risk. Primarily a manager or a decision maker might escalate a risk because they want to demonstrate their own competence. They might have taken some earlier decision and they might now want to show that their earlier decision making is justified (Hayes, 2014). The decision maker would want to protect their image at all costs and would want to show they were not wrong in choosing a strategy (Beshears, &Milkman, 2011).
In the given scenario, John Stokes has been represented as a hand on owner who although he has employed a CEO often thinks big and then goes on to make decisions. The CEO is usually the one who implements them. The thinking big strategy has led to success in the form of some store units being very productive. Southern stores have however showed less productivity. John Stokes at present wants to open more stores in New Zealand and wants to go global by entering the Australian market at first. This is a rather ambitious undertaking given the company state, so when the CEO recommends that some of its stores close at this time, John Stokes might decide to invest more in developing a strategy for them.
This way the stores might not have to close. However, when considering a commitment of resources, John Stokes should not fall into the trap of escalation of risk. A careful way to commit resources is to check is there is any potential for bringing the productivity up in those stores. Careful research should be carried out. If John Stokes was to commit resources only because an ambitious plan in the form of expansion exits, then it could be said that there is a clear scenario of ‘psychological commitment to past decisions’.
The second factor that could lead to the escalation of commitment is the pressure that the decision maker would feel for consistency (Staw, 1981; Staw & Hoang, 1995). There is a traditional line of thinking that change management in a company has to be consistent. This is quite paradoxical as the reason for change is by itself to ensure that some form of developmental action is met for the organization. Consistent change management could be viewed as being steadfast and committed (Hanks et al, 1993; Bateman, & Zeithaml, 1989). However, sometimes radical change management is also necessary.