Management - 3 tools or approaches that contributes to decision making [sap5] - Essay Example

Management: Approaches to Decision Making Approaches to Decision Making The main approaches to decision making are Vision, plan and consensus-led styles. In vision-led approach, an individual possesses a candid vision of the measures required to improve people’s cognitive behaviour, thinking and implementation actions on them. The Plan-led style specifies objectives and measures the optimal satisfaction of these objectives through analysis of the resulting plan to be implemented. Finally, the consensus-led approach discussions take place between the concerned stakeholders such as those in the transport, education, health and land use among others.

Measures to be implemented are those that draw immense support. In systems 1 and 2, the main features are observed when perceived from objectives-led and problem-oriented planning approaches (Moore & Lowenstein, 2004). The objective of joint-versus-separate decision making solves the problem of people failing to move from suboptimal System 1 thinking to improved System 2 thinking. The system is chosen and considered among multiple options concurrently rather than conceding or declining alternatives separately.

The objective approach cites a promising stream of research that evaluates how System 2 thinking can be weighted to lower System 1 errors. It demonstrates that analogical reasoning can be applied in reducing bounds on people’s consciousness like impulsivity and anxiety about relative outcomes. It is possible that the study on joint-against-separate decision making highlights the reality that our initial impulses lean more on emotions than logic (Moore & Lowenstein, 2004). For instance, additional suggestive results in passing exams include the findings that willpower to succeed is weakened when students are placed under severe cognitive burden and when they are insufficient knowledge in their study areas.

Students will most likely make less impulsive, but suboptimal decisions during schools years while further making choices in advance of their consequences. Another scenario is where school management adopt unilateral decisions that suggest that change in the decision’s context that promotes coolheaded System 2 thinking. This has the capability of reducing common biases from arising.I believe that when people get busier on their schedules, their minds get committed irrespective of time constraints faced, thus relying on System 1 thinking.

Managers of corporate companies implore System 1 thinking, where superior decision making is a recipe for improving efficiency without sacrificing brand quality. The problem and Solution-oriented objectives are significant in averting specific solutions embedded in the objectives (Bazerman & Moore, 2008). Management constraints have helped transport and food companies to search for solutions that lead to the development of an overall strategy more appropriate to company’s needs. I believe that the objective difference between System 1 and System 2 cognitive functioning gives a practical structure for organizing and employing effective strategies to improve decision making.

The objectives of having vision, plan and consensus harnesses future efforts in unraveling improvement strategies. I prefer System 1 in overcoming competitors since it is an intuitive system, which is ordinarily fast, automatic, easy, implied, and emotional in the company and employee perspective. I cite System 2 to be applicable in social or intimate circumstances demanding more energy, thoughtful, slower, conscious, explicit, and logical in decision making. Moreover, the strategy involved in system 2 considers an outsider’s dimension where on tries to eliminate oneself mentally from a condition or categories of decisions to which the present challenges belong (Bazerman & Moore, 2008).

ReferencesBazerman, M.H., & Moore, D. (2008). Judgment in managerial decision making (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Moore, D., & Lowenstein, G. (2004). Self-interest, automaticity, and the psychology of conflict of interest. Social Justice Research, 17, 189–202.