Biases and Judgment - Essay Example

Judgment Issues 30 August Memorandum Supervisor August 30, Judgment Issues Decision-making is critical to the success of organizations, because it results to actions that directly and indirectly impact organizational output and behaviors. The process of decision-making has been the subject of numerous studies, because the right approach can lead to effective and efficient decisions. The “fully rational” model of decision making, however, is too ideal, since it overlooks the role of emotions in making decisions.

Furthermore, it does not assure decision fairness, when emotions can impact the accuracy of ones assessments. I would like to describe two judgment issues that I had to address, particularly biases related to anchoring and adjustment and framing effects. Several biases impact decisions, such as bias, or ethical issues related to the availability heuristic and bias related to the representative heuristic. Bias related to the availability heuristic pertains to being biased for information that is easier to recall and presumed as related (Korte, 2003, p.447). Bias related to the representative heuristic refers to evaluating situations using traits that represent stereotyped beliefs and values (Korte, 2003, p.447). The first judgment bias that I dealt with is related to anchoring and adjustment.

Anchoring refers to focusing too much on an “anchor” or specific value in making decisions (Korte, 2003, p.447). Adjustment of decision-making occurs, when the decision becomes solely or greatly based on this anchor, instead of a wide range of factors (Korte, 2003, p.447). In order to deal with this bias, I used reflective decision-making, with expedient factors. Reflective decision-making pertains to having a long-term approach to decision-making, while expedience requires making fast decisions, often to achieve short-term goals (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2001, p.106). I needed to use reflective thinking, because I wanted to determine the potential anchors that I tend to use during making decisions.

For instance, identifying the criteria for establishing an effective and efficient human resource department requires selecting the right factors and weighing them appropriately. I avoided anchoring and adjustment by considering different aspects of the problem, such as employee sentiments, resources, and situational factors. The organizations needs a more concrete HR system, but they cannot afford a whole-unit approach to HR. Some people would also not be open to professionalizing their HR systems, because of fear for drastic organizational changes that will upset the status quo.

Instead, the organization can work on creating performance appraisal/evaluation plans, for instance, that will systematize how individual performance should be delivered and rated. In addition, I had to consider time constraints and limited resources, so I used expedient decision-making to identify time frames and constrain my decisions to available resources and within assigned deadlines. The second judgment bias that I had to deal with is framing. Framing issues happen when the problem definition is “misstated” (Chen, Wang, & Yu, 2003, p.6), due to incorrect analysis of multiple and interconnected causes.

As a result, the decisions do not adequately address underlying problems (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2001, p.106). I dealt with framing using the reflective approach. The reflective approach allows me to critically analyze the whole picture and its interrelated components, including micro and macro factors that impact existing organizational problems. I defined the problem of Familia Group Home Inc. by constantly asking why and why, until I reached underlying causes of the problem that include individual and organizational factors.

I realized that the organization did not develop standard operating procedures and/or policies and performance evaluation goals, indicators, and standards; hence, employees were not motivated to come to work on time and had no way of measuring their performances. In addition, the organizational culture is resistant to changes that can drastically change how they do work. Reflective decision-making with a mixture of expediency helped me address biases of anchoring and adjustment, as well as framing issues.

Reflective thinking analyzes different factors and interrelationships, which is fundamental to a complete and accurate definition of the problem. Expedient thinking is also needed to bind decisions to particular time frames and resources. Judgment issues cannot be avoided, but I can identify the biases I have beforehand to avoid allowing my emotions in negatively affecting my decisions. Instead, my awareness of my biases and emotions, as well as emotions in the workplace, should be used to help me further analyze organizational problems and prepare workable solutions that will have high buy-in for stakeholders.

ReferencesChen, M.C., Wang, C., & Yu, S. (2003). A comparative study on decision making approach in a dilemma between Taiwanese and Italian business managers. Retrieved from http://www.hicbusiness.org/biz2003proceedings/Mark%20Chun-hsueh.pdfKorte, R.F. (2003). Biases in decision making and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5 (4), 440-457. Retrieved from http://www.rkorte.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Korte03Biases-in-Decision-Making.pdfHoch, S.J. & Kunreuther, H.C. (2001).

Wharton on making decisions. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.