American Tool & Die - Case Study Example

Part 1: Decision Making Kelly Muellers, the daughter should be the one to make the decision in front of the organization but not her father. This is because she seems to understand the real issues affecting the company and the outcomes of such issues. While the father understands the situation and the outcomes too, he is not ready to act to save the company but her daughter is. The fact that American Tool & Die (AT&D) is in dire need of change or face bankruptcy shows that the company has no hope in Michigan. As such, there is nothing to gain by not adapting to changes, yet the family stands to lose everything if a decision to save it is not made. By allowing the daughter to make the decision, the company will save resources, time and emerge more effective than before. Furthermore, Kelly Muellers seems to have a balance of logic and intuition when making decisions- traits which are absent in the father. The daughter has high sensory acuity and experience in making high quality decisions as seen by the decisions she has made in the years she worked in large organizations before joining AT&D. Furthermore, having worked for 15 years as an engineer at two U.S. large automakers gave her enough experience required to make viable decisions (Caldwell, 2014). Moreover, Kelly Muellers is more suited to make the decision as she is a rational decision maker who is aware that the personal decision she will make will not only affect the business, but also the families and workers who directly benefit from the company. However, she is more driven by priorities and value for the decision she is making. This can be demonstrated by the extensive research she has carried out about the location in Mississippi which is ideal as it is located near a new Toyota plant with a potential of giving hope to the people of Mississippi who were heavily affected by the recession. Her research has clearly indicated that the company had no future in Michigan, but the opportunities in Mississippi were vast. It is clear that a valuable decision is the one that will rescue the company which is facing a risk of bankruptcy. Furthermore, if the company is closed due to bankruptcy, even the people working in the company will lose their livelihood. As such, there is no opportunity cost of moving to Mississippi (Sarfin, 2014). There are several reasons why the father should be secluded from making the decision. One of the major drawbacks as an effective decision maker in this case is rooted in his emotional attachment to the current location of the company and the people working for him. This is attributed to the fact that AT&D was established by his family in the same location in 1912 and therefore, the location has sentimental value to him. There are many memories of the people of Michigan who have made a living out of the company for years and the thought of laying off all of them makes him reluctant to change. Emotional theory is applicable in this case. This means that he is unable to make rational decisions consistently due to the influence of emotional memory, emotional state, expectations and past experiences. Due to his tendency to give so much importance and emphasis to his emotional attachment to Michigan, he is losing on the current and looming bad news that is threatening to destroy the company (Campbell, 2009). Furthermore, Brofft is reluctant to change even when the situation demands so. A good business leader should recognize when to make transition from the status quo into the future which offers more desirable business opportunities and a future. As such, he should be able to plan and implement change so as to steer the company to the future by ensuring that its effectiveness is maximized. For businesses to remain competitive, companies need to constantly be on the move to adopt and respond to the changing business environment. However, Brofft is reluctant to change and this can bring failure to his company (Campbell, 2009). Part 2: Pros and cons of having a group make the decision as opposed to the father or daughter Group decision making occurs when several individuals deliberate on an issue and decide on the way forward collectively. The decision made is participatory and depends on the level of contribution within the group. There are different benefits and drawbacks of using group decision making in the case of AT&D’s fate as opposed to allowing either the father of the daughter to make the decision individually (Macdonald, 2014). Group decision making is beneficial in this case as it provides two very important aspects of high quality decision making which are sharing of information and synergy. With more people, there comes more ideas which broaden the scope of the information. The unique member contribution and expertise sharing helps in facilitation of quality decisions through debates and clarification of issues. Synergy refers to the appeal of the decision made by the whole group being greater than the sum of the decisions made by the individuals alone. This means that a decision made by the group is more likely to be more effective, keener and plausible than individual’s decisions as decision refinement is achieved through collaboration, questioning and discussion which leads to identification of robust and complete recommendations (Luthans, 2005). However, there are negative aspects which are associated by group decision making such as diffusion of responsibility which leads to lack of accountability, low efficiency due to the additional time required for effective deliberation, the groupthink syndrome resulting from the pressure of the group members’ desire to conform as well as loyalty which prevents members of the group from airing their criticism, alternative solutions or controversial issues thereby eroding independent thinking, uniqueness, creativity and individuality which are important aspects of quality decisions in a group. Formation, composition, leadership, operation of the group The formation of the group would best be effected by holding a meeting with Kelly Muellers, Brofft and executives of the company. They will then discuss about the relocation issue by collaborate their ideas and sharing their information according to personal views. The group will then compile their ideas by seeking clarification, explanation and refuting some ideas through positive criticism. The group will be taking cues from its leader who will probably be Kelly Muellers as she is more energetic, creative and conversant with the modern technology and modern aspects that will allow the company to survive the issues it is having now. As a leader, she will regulate the group, guide the discussions and ensure productivity of the group. Although the leader is reasonable for regulation of the group deliberation, she will not refute or consent to any decision that has not been agreed upon by the group. As such, the power and authority of the leader will be limited to the extent on the group’s consent (Luthans, 2005). The groups seeks to ensure that all the members involved in the discussions participate actively by ensuring a consensus decision making model is utilized where a decision is made after deliberating on everyone’s fair input. To minimize on the conflicts in the group and avoid issues arising out of the desire to impress either the father or the daughter, anonymous contribution and voting should be implemented so that members of the group don’t feel intimidated to make decisions out of fear of losing their jobs or facing problems related to their work. References Caldwell, R., (2014). Successful business leaders know how to make decisions. , Shaw Media, Crystal Lake, Illinois, USA. Campbell, A., (2009), “How Emotional Tagging can Push Leaders to Make Bad Decisions”. Ivey Business Journal. Harris,R., (2013). “Introduction to Decision Making”, Part 1. VirtualSalt. Hinsz, V.B., & G.S. Nickell. (2004). "Positive Reactions to Working in Groups in a Study of Group and Individual Goal Decision-Making." Group Dynamics 8: 253–264. Karen E. Klein, (2009). Survival Advice for Auto Parts Suppliers, BusinessWeek (June 1) Luthans, F. (2005). Organizational Behavior. 10th ed. McGraw Hill Irwin: Boston. Macdonald, T., (2014). (How do we really make decisions?” BBC News. Sarfin, R. L., (2014). “Anchoring Effects to Influence Decision Making in a Business”. Demand Media. Read More