Organizational Choices, Values and Frames - Assignment Example

Organizations as political systems: the managerial bias in critical perspective: The reading analyzes the empirical-analytic models of organizational politics and its implications in organizational theory. It has four sections wherein it discusses the crisis of a modern organization theory, the emerging political theory, how the political model is anchored to a technocratic model even if it discredits the political ideology of the theocratic model and how the critique of the political model can be used to develop effective strategies and policies that can challenge bureaucracy. The crisis of modern organizational theory is its failure to create strategies that will address issues of productivity and innovation. The control for power as a result of the corporate management’s political motives is the main focus of the strategies. This does not, in turn, address the problems but results to inefficiency and stagnation. In overcoming efficiency, the organization becomes mechanical in its approach to organize and manage itself. Technical rationality focuses much on the consensus of the individuals to the organization’s goal, technological advancement and increased systematizing of processes. The traditional concept of organization, then, does not fit the modern times and developments. Theory and practice do not coincide, thus, resulting to a fragmented action and unproductive attempts to move forward. The emphasis on technical rationality is the main reason for the gap between theory and practice. Thus, competing modern theories aim to bridge this gap. The political model is one such example. It aims to introduce competing interest in the organizational theory to bring the focus on value preferences and desired consequences of action. It creates interconnection between the departments instead of a top-down approach. Example The rational model of an organization can result to a manipulative organization. Since it uses a top-down approach, whatever the decisions of the higher management is, that would be implement throughout the organization. For example, the decision for disciplinary actions will only be based upon the decision of the board in a top-down approach. But in a political model, wherein there is a collaboration and interaction between the concerned departments, there is a level of fair and just decision making. Instead of the board determining the action, the departments involved will be allowed to give their input and decisions regarding the matter. This presents a fair and just judgement for the offense and it will increase the trust of the members of the organization with the management system. By the interaction of the different departments in the organization, the management will not be manipulated and dominated by the just the top management. A reappraisal of probabilistic risk analysis: Abstract Probabilistic risk analysis is a rational, objective and scientific method used for determining and addressing public safety concerns and technological hazards. Failure rate and the predicted consequence are combined to measure the level of threat or risk and is compared with the other risk measures. From this comparison, the level of risk is determined and measured. The fault-tree analysis is one kind of probabilistic risk analysis. It is a pictorial display of a chain of failure consequences that may lead to a threat or risk. It provides a quantitative measurement of the safety of the system used, a measurement of the impact of a change in the system, a technique to detect a specific failure and a documentation of the complete safety analysis. The fault-tree analysis uses the linear perspective and because of this it becomes ineffective since not all system accidents happen within the normal reasons of failure. Because of this, the fault-tree analysis does not able to encompass many interaction effects. Concentrating on technical and technological failures, it fails to consider the human factor in the system accidents. Thus, the concept of acceptable risk is created in order to determine an acceptable level of risk as long as the technological hazard does not present a risk quantitatively greater than one’s normal exposure on it. But human reaction and action cannot be determined and foreseen. Probability risk analysis cannot anticipate the possible interconnection and interdependence of events since it treats values independently of each other. Since it deals with probable values, as a result of the estimates from previous repeated trials, it cannot really determine and pinpoint exactly the possible risks that may happen. Accidents may happen once in a period of time and it cannot be plotted since there is only one isolated case on it but this accident may cause worldwide mayhem and there are no determined solutions for it. Example There are contingency plans created by a company anticipating possible system and technological failures. An example for this is a contingency plan created when faced with a virus threat on the software systems. There is an organization-wide lockdown of these assets in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But of course, this plan is not always foolproof since human actions are involved in shutting down these software systems and prior to that human action of making sure that back-ups of the system and other software documents made safe. Also, in risk analysis, the contingency plans are set in place according to what is expected to happen. But what if the virus targets the main drive or what if the virus is set like a bomb that will set off once the systems are re-opened thinking that the virus is already cleaned up? These are the kinds of situation wherein it is rare that there is no specific contingency for it because it was unexpected. Image theory: personal and organizational decisions: Abstract Image theory is a descriptive theory of decision making. Three decision-related images are used by the decision maker. The value consists of the guiding principles, morals, values and ethics of the decision maker. In an organizational structure, these are the collective norms and values of the group. Potential goals and inconsistent with these principles can be rejected. The trajectory image consists of the goals and the timelines for achieving them. Goals may be concrete, specific or abstract. Potential goals may arise from suggestions, the need to satisfy principles or something connected to the present working goal. The strategic image consists of the action plans and the implementation of the said action plans in order to achieve the goals. Through the process of decision making, the goals, timelines and the action plan may change accordingly. This is because tactics, the specific actions intended to facilitate implementation of the progression towards the goal, is affected by the forecast, an anticipation of the future and possible incidents and events that may happen along the way towards the goal. Potential action plans to achieve the goals may come from past experiences, suggestions or inspiration. Decisions can be by adoption or progression. Adoption decisions adopt or reject possible goals and plans. It may be done through screening, eliminating unacceptable candidates, or through choice, selecting the most promising candidates. Progress decisions, on the other hand, examine the fit between the forecast if the plan is continued and the ideal future as defined by the trajectory image. These decisions are tested through the compatibility test, which analyzes the compatibility between the candidate and the three images. The paper concludes that there are choice strategies specific upon the characteristics of the decision problems, environment and the decision maker himself. The profitability test looks into this parameter to specify contingencies. Example The choices that a person makes depend mainly on his values and the situation while the goal is being reached. For example, the goal is career advancement. The action plan for this is to make sure that the decision maker is performing well in the career that he is in to move forward. But since there are external factors that affect his actions and behaviour, and also his appraisal, like the decision or perception of his superior, then the action plan may change from just performing to becoming an achiever in everything and taking it a mile by initiating projects and proposals. Also, his environment within the organization, including the reactions and suggestions of other members of the organization will also affect his behaviour. The reasons for his career advancement should also be taken into consideration, that is his guiding principle. For example, if this goal is in connection with his goal to become rich then the action plan will also change. Groupthink: Abstract Groupthink refers to manipulation of group norms to boost group morale at the expense of critical thinking. The people within the group are dominated by a concurrence-seeking mode of thinking to establish the cohesiveness of the group. The loyalty to the group and its norms is so high that the individuals do not care whether the policies within the group are not working well for the institution or for themselves. A central feature of group cohesiveness is social acceptance. It is expected then that the members of the group will become more comfortable in saying what they think without fear of being antagonized. In groupthink, however, the opposite happens. Conformity increases as cohesiveness increases, thus, the more cohesive the group becomes, the greater the inner compulsion of the members to avoid disunity or disputes. Eight characteristics of groupthink are enumerated: invulnerability, rationale, morality, stereotypes, pressure, self-censorship, unanimity and mindguards. All of these characteristics points to increasing the cohesiveness of the group and an increased desire to prevent any disruptive behaviour that will cause disunity. Because of groupthink, there is a tendency to ineffectively deal with problems since the group tends to reject alternative solutions from their norms and values. There is also a tendency to reject the positions of the minority in order to preserve the cohesiveness of the group, thus, making the solutions biased towards the majority. This may lead to in inefficient management system since the consensus to follow the majority is high even if the policies are clearly ineffective. Remedies for the negative impact of groupthink are also presented though they might pose side effects with leadership and management if the leader is not strong enough to maintain his position with the group. One of the major suggestions is to consult with behavioural scientists to prevent the negative impacts of groupthink. Example: This article can explain why there are certain organizations that are closed-minded about suggestions and change coming from outside. Becoming part of an organization with a high level of groupthink will make one lose his own identity because of the implications of putting one’s innermost desires aside for the values of the organization. For example, someone who wants not to be ridiculed or kicked out from the organization will keep quiet about his suggestions of improving the management system because it is a defiance of the policies of the existing management system. When this member reacts differently against the existing policies or the proposed policies of the majority, the majority has the tendency to isolate and be hostile with this certain individual because he may cause a rift between the organization which may lead to a downfall of the existing leaders, and this is what they are trying to prevent by maintaining groupthink. Choices, values and frames: Abstract The article presents an analysis of the choices in decision making. Cognitive and psychosocial factors are examined to determine its impact on the choices presented and decision making itself. Choices are made without the ultimate knowledge of how it would impact the trail of events that will follow after it. The chain of events is unpredictable and can yield various outcomes. With this, the study of decision making under risk focuses on the choices, monetary outcomes and specified probabilities to determine basic attitudes towards risk and value. A psychophysical analysis of responses to money and probability are presented as a basis for many of the hypothesis and approaches to risky choices. It looks into Bernoulli’s attempt to explain why people are unwilling to face risks and how risk aversion decreases as wealth increases. It also looks into the prospect theory, by which the analysis of outcomes are determined by its gains and losses rather than the total assets. The link between the economic theory and risk aversion is also analyzed because of its effects on value losses and gains. Modern decision theory is also examined in order to lay down the preferences of a rational decision maker in connection with the presented choices. An analysis of framing and value to demonstrate invariance are also taken into consideration with regards to explaining risky choices. The contribution of experience value, the degree of pleasure or pain in experiencing the outcome, and decision value, the contribution of the anticipated outcome to the overall attractiveness of an option, in determining what choice to make is associated with an ideal decision maker. In conclusion, framing effects and violations of invariance actually complicates the relation of experience and decision values. This, then, creates a mismatch and, thus, creates uncertainty in making choices. Utility and value impacts choices as it creates the worth of a decision. Example: A decision of an individual is dependent upon his perceived value of the choices he is presented with. Let’s take an offer of a higher position to a staff member. This individual will look at his options with a monetary value and that will be one of the basis of his decision. He will also look into anticipated outcome of being in that certain position. Questions would be, would it be profitable for him in terms of monetary value and experience value, or in layman’s terms, will it bring him pleasure and happiness if he accepts a higher position with more responsibility. This will then be the basis of his decision. Looking at this, the members of an organization will only pick a certain option if he deems it valuable according to his own definition. If that individual feels that the monetary value is not worth the experience value, then it is a possibility that he will not accept the offer. References Beach, L.R. (1993), ‘Image theory: personal and organizational decisions’ in Klein et al (eds), Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods, Ablex, Norwood. Fischer, F. (1990), Chapter 11 (part), ‘Organizations as political systems’, in Technology and the Politics of Expertise, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Janis, I.L. (1971), ‘Groupthink’, Psychology Today, November. Kahneman, D. & Tvesky, A. (1984). ‘Choices, values and frames.’ American Psychologist, 39(4). Whittaker, J. (1991), ‘A reappraisal of probabilistic risk analysis’, Engineering Management Journal, 3 (3). Read More