Jenny Lu and Romeo Situation - Case Study Example

Observation Review Name Course Tutor’s Name Date: Observation The decision that Jenny Lu had to make was whether to act as a whistleblower based on suspicions that she had regarding one of her co-workers, Romeo. As the acting project manager, Jenny considered the probability that if her suspicions about Romeo’s sabotage were right, her efforts and those of her colleagues towards the project proposal which was supposed to be given to the customers on Friday would go to waste. Notably however, Jenny did not have all the facts needed to sustain or prove her accusation that Romeo was indeed sharing vital office information with the company’s rival. Although she had heard Romeo speaking on the phone in what appeared like a revelation of details regarding the project she had been left to manage, Jenny had no way to ascertain who exactly Romeo was speaking to. As Simon (1986, p. S211) indicates, there is a need to “distinguish between the real world and the actor’s perception of it and reasoning about it” when judging a decision maker. In Jenny’s case, the real world scenario was that Romeo was speaking on the phone, but did not reveal anything substantial that Jenny heard. Jenny’s perceptions and reasoning however have led her to believe that Romeo was in the process of revealing some ideas to a rival company. Much as Jenny’s decision was shaped by her reasoning and perceptions, it was also influenced by all the advice received from her co-workers. Much as the co-workers had conflicting and divergent views, their advice left Jenny thinking about what the true reality of what she had heard, and the truth in her earlier assumptions that Romeo was revealing company secrets. The temporary nature of her project management position and the need to inspire the trust and cooperation of her colleagues in her future career life in the company must also have had an effect on her decision to tell Avril about her suspicions about Romeo, and letting Avril handle the situation. Theory application The decision by Jenny to report her suspicion about Romeo to Avril was arguably inspired by what she (Jenny) believed was acting rationally. After receiving different pieces of advice from her colleagues, Jenny probably thought the best thing to do under the circumstances was let Avril decide whether the suspicions were valid and whether they warranted further investigations. Jenny’s decision-making can be explained through the bounded rationality theory, which asserts that “decision makers are intendedly (sic) rational” (Jones 1999, p. 297). According to Simon (1996), decisions arise from two sources: the external environment, and the internal environment. The external environment is made up of incentives that face decision makers from the external environment. In Jenny’s case, she would have wanted to win the project pitch being a temporary project manager and was probably very sensitive to anything she thought (rightly or wrongly) to be a threat to the same. She probably also knew, either consciously or unconsciously, that the departure of Romeo from the firm would enhance her chances of taking up his place. She might also have been motivated by the need to be recognised as an employee who upholds integrity and honesty. The internal environment on the other hand is made up of factors that make the decision-maker to deviate from demands placed on her by the external environment (Favereau 2001; Simon 1996). In Jenny’s case, the realisation that she could be wrong in her assumptions that Romeo was actually disclosing vital company information; her need to be accepted by her other colleagues who might think she did not have sufficient ground to accuse Romeo; and perhaps her inner conviction that she had to do the right thing are some of the factors in her internal environment that must have affected her decision-making. Theories of bounded rationality suggest that a person is constrained in his/her capacity to process information. Used in the current context, the foregoing could suggest that although Jenny may have been aware of the factors in her internal and external environments, she was limited in her capacity to processes to decipher the effect of such factors and her decisions were therefore not based on her optimal consideration of all relevant factors. Simon (1972, p. 161) also observes that “rationality can be bounded” where a decision-maker has “only incomplete information about alternatives”. Hence, it is notable that the advice given to Jenny by her colleagues was diverse and conflicting. One can therefore assume that she had piecemeal information on all the alternatives that had been suggested to her. It would also appear that she did not fully understand the consequences of her decisions. If she had for example chosen to act as a whistleblower, she did not know whether Avril her boss would commend her or rebuke her for the action; she did not know whether her action would maker her get a promotion or would make her lose her job altogether; she did not know whether she would be perceived as a heroine or a traitor by her colleagues; and perhaps the most relevant one was that she did not know if she was right or mistaken in her assumptions that Romeo was disclosing vital company information to a rival company. Simons (1972, p. 164) further observes that “rationality can be bounded by assuming complexity in the cost function or other environmental constraints so great as to prevent the actor from calculating the best course of action”. In Jenny’s case, she might for example have assumed that the cost of establishing whether indeed her suspicions were correct would have taken too much and effort, and therefore chose not to delve in the same. Realistically however, it would have taken redialling the number that Romeo had dialled (assuming its him who had made the call) and verifying who the call was made to, or checking his email correspondence (assuming the said sent file was through email) with assistance from a person from the IT department. Jenny might also have assumed that her temporary mandate as the project manager did not give her the powers to take on such a huge responsibility as whistle blowing assuming that if she did, Avril would not have allowed her to take up similar positions in future. Overall, whatever compromises Jenny made in her decision-making process match a person’s bounded capabilities to decipher problems, consider alternatives and make decisions regarding the same. Reflection Personally, I would have not told Avril about my suspicions unless I had gathered enough evidence to support the same. By being away in Dublin (and still would be by the time the proposal was submitted to the clients), Avril suffered time and space limitations thus meaning that try as she may, she would not be able to investigate or even stop Romeo from jeopardising the proposal that was to be submitted to the client. In my opinion, gathering enough evidence, whistle blowing (if necessary), and letting the company lawyers deal with the company that would have benefited from Romeo’s suspected dishonesty would have a better decision. In his explanations of what bounded rationality is, Simon (1957, cited by Selten 1999) defines decision making as a search process that is guided by a person’s aspiration levels. An aspiration level is on the other hand defined as “a value of a goal variable which must be reached or surpassed by a satisfactory decision alternative”. In my case, the foregoing decision to collect evidence against Romeo and whistle blow if necessary is inspired by the inspiration level, which is to ensure that the proposal’s chances of winning are not undermined by Romeo’s suspected dishonesty, and to prove my worth as a competent project manager who can handle the challenges and problems encountered by like managers. In line with bounded rationality’s assertions that decision-makers are faced with limited (and sometimes unreliable) information about possible alternatives, I must admit that I haven’t fully evaluated other alternatives. For example, I do not know if Avril can make it in good time to head the investigations on Romeo’s suspected actions before the proposal can be submitted to the client. I must also admit that in line with bounded rationality’s take on time limitations, my decision is ‘satisficing’ as indicated by Camerer (1998) rather than optimal, mainly because it seems necessary for me to unearth whether my suspicions are right before submitting the proposal to the client on Friday. As indicated by Simon (1995), at times there is a mismatch between the decision-maker’s choices and his/her environment. I expect the same to be true for me, especially if I cannot access some areas that are vital for gathering evidence against Romeo. In other words, I am well aware that my immediate environment may hinder the effectiveness of my decision. If such a mismatch occurs, then it would be correspond to Simon’s (1996) reference of “bounded rationality showing through”. In line with the assumptions of bounded rationality as indicated by Jones (1999) and Kahneman (2003), it is important to indicate that as a decision-maker, I would have been guided by the goals of wanting my project management stint not to be undermined by any intended disruptions from my colleagues. Overall, I am convinced that my decision would have been better than Jenny’s decision; yet, I am also aware that another person would have a different take on the proper decision to make given the situation that Jenny was in. Whatever the case, all possible decisions are an illustration that although decision-makers intend to be rational in their decisions, they often fail and instead succumb to the limitations of information, time and the mind’s capacity to make good judgement. References Camerer, C F 1998, ‘Behavioural economics and non-rational organisational decision making,’ pp. 53-77. Favereau, O 2001, ‘Theory of information: From bounded rationality to interpretive reason’, In P Petit (Ed.), Economics and Information, pp. 93-120, Kluwer, Dordrecht. Jones, B D 1999, ‘Bounded rationality’, Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 2, pp. 297-321. Kahneman, D 2003, ‘Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioural economics’, American Economic Review, vol. 93, pp. 1449-1475. Selten R 1999, ‘What is bounded rationality? Paper Prepared for the Dahlem Conference, Discussion Paper, B-454, pp. 1-25. Simon, H A 1995, ‘Rationality in political behaviour’, Political Psychology, vol. 16, 45-61. Simon, H A 1972, ‘Theories of bounded rationality’, In CB McGuire & R Radner (Eds.), Decision and Organisation, 161-176, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam. Simon, H A 1996, The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Read More