Normative Models of Judgment and Decision Making - Case Study Example

Management Author Institution Introduction The importance of decision making in any organization cannot be gainsaid as far as the long term sustainability is concerned. In fact, decision making transcends the organizational paradigm and infiltrates into even the personal space of an individual. In essence, decision making has a bearing on the organizational effectiveness. Various definitions have been put forward as to decision making. It may be defined as a human and conscious process that involves both social and individual phenomena and is based on value and factual premises, which may incorporate a choice of a single behavioral activity from competing alternatives, with the sole aim of moving towards certain, desired state of affairs. In addition, decision making may be defined as the act of choosing between varied courses of action that are designed to produce specified results, and one that is based on the review of relevant information that is guided by some explicit criteria. Decision making may also be defined as a moment in a continuous process of evaluating and weighing alternatives for meeting a certain objective, at which expectations pertaining to a certain course of action impels the decision maker to choose the course of action or decision that is most likely to lead to attaining a predetermined objective (Wallach, 1962). As much as there are variations as to the definitions given to decision making depending on the context or situation, it is clear that the concept involves making a choice between competitive alternatives to ensure or ascertain that the objectives are attained. In manufacturing, decision making would involve choosing a course of action that maximizes output while minimizing losses (Wallach, 1962). Of course, there are varied levels of decision making in an organization. In my case, I had been appointed a team leader for a team composed of nine (9) individuals in the university. In essence, quite many decisions pertaining to the way forward fell on my shoulders. As much as I am relatively proud of most of the decisions that I have made so far, I must admit that there are varied decisions that I feel I should have made differently. Two instances stick out as the most conspicuous. In one instance, I had been charged with the responsibility if allocating tasks amongst the varied members of the team. In another instance, I was required to ensure that the group completed fifteen projects. As expected, any decision made on these issues involved certain risks and consequences, irrespective of the action taken (Wallach, 1962). 1. Task allocation among team members Task allocation proved as one of the most contentious issues for me as a team leader. In most cases, I would allocate tasks, duties and responsibilities on an ad hoc basis, in which case any team member would pick tasks depending on individual feeling regarding the task. In my opinion, this method allowed for maximization of flexibility, which would have enhanced the potential velocity (Banning, 2008). In essence, the team would sign up for tasks in order that made the most sense. It is noteworthy that the method supported varied impressive practices such as collective code ownership least qualified implementer, as well as switching pair programming partners frequently (Hubbard & Beamish, 2010). In some instances, a few silos of knowledge pertaining to functionality would develop, but the method of allocation made it easy to fix them (Banning, 2008). Moreover, this approach optimized the notion of team accountability, at least in my opinion. This is because the entire team would be responsible for accomplishing the tasks within the stipulated period (Thomas-Hunt, & Phillips, 2004). A. Problem This strategy, however, brought several problems into the team. One of the key problems revolved around the fact that some team members would easily slack off by consistently taking up trivial tasks, as well as inflating the time that was needed to accomplish them (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Alternatively, they would pair up with individuals who were strong in certain areas, thereby leaving them to carry on the tasks while they whiled the time. Another problem that emanated from the approach was the flip side of its key strength; team accountability (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). I acknowledged that no single team member was directly accountable for tasks other than the tasks that he or she took over. Team responsibility tended to diminish individual responsibility, which meant that nobody felt responsible for poor performance or incompletion of tasks (Nelson & Quick, 2000). This also came with the problem of some tasks remaining in active development at any time. Most of the team members would move to “juicy” or uncomplicated tasks, while putting off the tempting, or unexciting tasks for later (Nelson & Quick, 2000). Unfortunately, this would limit the progress of the group as the difficult tasks would have limited time for completion. B. Impact With the understanding that there was inequality in the magnitude and complexity of tasks, ad hoc allocation of tasks bred feelings of unfairness (van Knippenberg et al, 2004). It is worth noting that the team members did not think that the tasks had been equally distributed, which put cooperation at risk. The importance of cooperation in the work environment cannot be gainsaid. In fact, the essence of team work is positive interdependence or cooperation (van Knippenberg et al, 2004). Cooperation is defined as acting or working together for a universal benefit or purpose. Scholars have observed that cooperation enhances the productivity and effectiveness of workers. It goes without saying that the incorporation of cooperation in any group is an indicator of peaceful cohesion among the varied team members (Luthans, 2005). It entails recognition of the distinctive skills that every person has and volunteering to work as a component of a team (Thomas-Hunt, & Phillips, 2004). In essence, the group would have benefited from the collaboration of individual perspectives in solving the problems or developing a creative or innovative business strategy (Luthans, 2005). This would, with no doubt, have enhanced the effectiveness of the team and allowed for completion of the tasks within the stipulated time (Hinsz, & Nickell 2004). Unfortunately, the negative perceptions injured the cohesion of the group even though the tasks were completed. Upon reflection, I realize that the incorporation of rational decision making models would have been preferable or appropriate. This model revolves around a cognitive judgment of the pros, as well as cons pertaining to the different approaches (Hinsz, & Nickell 2004). The tasks would have been critically analyzed and their workload determined, thereby allowing for a comparatively equitable distribution or allocation of tasks (Bromwich & Bhimani, 2009). In this way, the most sensible and logical alternative that comes with the desired benefits or effects would have been selected after a detailed analysis of the varied alternatives, as well as a comparative assessment of the different aspects of the allocation method (Bromwich & Bhimani, 2009). Alternatively, the Critical Thinking model (Chaffee, 2011) would come in handy as it would help the team in analysing the tasks at hand, as well as determining the workload that each of the tasks come with, thereby allowing for equitable distribution of the tasks. 2. Safeguarding the completion of fifteen projects within a stipulated timeframe. I had been charged with the duty and responsibility of ensuring the completion of five projects within a predetermined timeframe. Of courses, I was enthusiastic to ensure that the task is completed in time and within the budget, which would have, therefore, meant the incorporation of effectiveness in the team. The key focus, therefore, was the completion of the job within the budget, which, unfortunately, meant the relegation of the team members’ welfare to the background. In safeguarding the attainment of these objectives, I resourced the opinions of two other team members and assigned only four weeks for the completion of the task. However, the other team members were expected or required to be working even on Sundays to enhance the sustainability of this project and the overall efficiency of the team. Time and money was of the essence here, in which case no resources would have been spared in accomplishing the task. Impact The incorporation of a rational decision making approach tended to ignore the emotional and subjective side of other team members, whereas they were to be affected directly by the decision made (Bromwich, et al 2009). It is worth noting that people are political and social animals, in which case they have certain personalities, desires, likes and preferences, as well as dislikes (Maznevski, 2004). In essence, what I considered as rational ran the risk of being irrational to other people in the team. It is worth noting that the enthusiasm of a charismatic or positive-thinking leader has the capacity to influence the team to agree with certain decisions, which should have been opposed (Bromwich, et al 2009). Unfortunately, this is what I think happened in my case. In addition, I assumed that I had all the required information necessary to make the decision. This assumption, however, held only in theory rather than in practice, as I came to realize later. Scholars have opined that even the basic idea pertaining to reality, around which rationality is built, is not universal (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Reality to any individual, entails his or her experiences and perceptions, in which case there are variations as to what different individuals may term as real or objective (Hinsz, & Nickell 2004). The behaviorist approach asserts that an individual is shaped by learning and experience into acting in a certain way, in which case no two individuals would have similar ways of thinking or looking at issues (Martin & Pear, 2002). This may also be explained in form of preference utilitarian, where I saw the “good” in satisfying my preferences, thanks to my personal behavior. As much as the sustainability of the team its efficiency would have seemed logical and rational to me some members would have wanted to have some time for their families, which would have been accomplished over weekends. Unfortunately, I did not consult widely enough, in which case my rationality tended to ignore the feelings of other people especially as pertaining to familial ties and religious matters. This created a platform for conflicts with other team members, which essentially jeopardized job satisfaction (Miller, 1996). It is noteworthy that job satisfaction has a bearing on the productivity or effectiveness of the team and the organization at large. Job satisfaction translates to motivation, which consequently leads to enhanced incentives to attain or achieve the goals and objectives of the team (Thomas-Hunt, & Phillips, 2004). In retrospect, I realize that even the two members that I consulted were cowed by the enthusiasm with which I approached the subject and did not express their true feelings about the entire issue (Miller, 1996). The incorporation of groups in decision-making process would have allowed for the full utilization of group resources (Johnson & Johnson, 2009), as well as the time that the group has at its disposal. Decisions made in this case would be of high quality and correct, with high possibility that all the group members would implement them fully (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Moreover, the capability of the group to solve problems would be enhanced rather than lessened (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Recommendations 1. Allocation of tasks The key issue during allocation of tasks was ensuring that all team members bore an equal burden for the roles (Baron, 2004). However, it was imperative that the likes and preferences of members were considered. In this case, a method of allocating tasks to all members in an equitable manner would have to be devised (Baron, 2004). In my opinion, rational decision making models would be the most appropriate. This would involve a number of steps. First, the opportunity or problem would be identified to determine whether any action would be worthwhile (Janis, 1972). Relevant information pertaining to the decision would then be gathered to facilitate making of the most effective decision. All alternative courses of action that are available would then be determined to help in analyzing the situation (Baron, 2004). The different interpretation of the available data would be considered. These would then allow for development of options, which would then be evaluated to determine the most appropriate. The preferred alternative is then chosen and implemented (Mintzberg, 1976). In this situation, it would be extremely imperative that the tasks are implemented in line with individual capability, experience and skills (Janis, 1972). These would then be aligned to the task available and assigned accordingly. This would leave little or no space for slacking as everyone would be held responsible for their part in the job (Mintzberg, 1976). The key reason for changing the method of allocating tasks is to eliminate slacking among individuals in the team and promote feelings of equitable distribution of tasks. In this way, cohesiveness in the group would be enhanced thereby promoting motivation and job satisfaction (Bromwich & Bhimani, 2009). These would consequently lead to increased performance and productivity especially in the long run (Mintzberg, 1976). 2. Safeguarding fifteen claims in stakes I have no doubt that the inclusion or incorporation of individual decision making method in the team worked against the team spirit. In essence, I feel that it would have been preferable to incorporate group decision making. In this case, all individuals would have been consulted to allow for the consideration of all the available alternatives (Basi, 1998). This would ensure that all individuals concerned owned the process, especially having in mind that the decision was affecting them in one way or another (Basi, 1998). In essence, the team members would have felt that they were valuable to the team and the entire organization, which would have translated to enhanced job satisfaction and motivation. These would consequently enhance the overall performance of the team as all individuals would own the process (Butler, et al, 1972). Rather than incorporating subjective, rational decision making processes (Johnson & Johnson, 2009), I should have used group decision making processes, which would have had an enhanced appeal to the people being affected by the decision. It would also have been preferable that I use act utilitarianism, where I would focus on carrying out the task that results in the greatest benefits. Of course, there were rules to be followed, but I should have been worried about how all people felt, rather than the completion of the job (Hubbard & Beamish, 2010). In conclusion, decision making in is one of the most crucial pillars in any organization. It mainly involves the selection of one course of action amongst varied, competing alternatives, with the sole aim of attaining the organization's goals and objectives proficiently (Robbins et al, 2006). As I reflect on the decisions that I have made in my capacity as a leader, I realize that there are instances where I made decisions that may not have had the best implications, both on the entire team and the team members. Two decisions that I am especially not proud of having made are the allocation of tasks in the group and decisions on attainment of fifteen claims in stakes. I had previously allocated tasks on an ad hoc basis, a system that allowed for slacking off and the group responsibility. This eliminated individual responsibility especially where tasks were not done satisfactorily (Robbins et al, 2006). I would, therefore, recommend the incorporation of rational decision making methods, where all facets pertaining to the allocation would be considered. In attaining fifteen claims in stakes, my decision not to involve most members of the group especially as to the working schedules may have led to the deterioration of relations between me and other team members (Butler, et al, 1972). Team members would have preferred to be consulted especially having in mind that the decision as to their working schedules affected them directly. In essence, I would be apt at increasing the participation of members in decision making in groups. (Butler, et al, 1972). References Banning, M (2008). A review of clinical decision making: models and current research. Journal of Clinical Nursing. pp 19-27 Baron, J. (2004). Normative models of judgment and decision making: Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (pp 42-57). London: Blackwell. Basi, R.S. (1998). Administrative decision making: a contextual analysis (pp 34-47). Management Decision Bromwich, C, Hemming & Mitchell, (2009). Role development: a contemporary challenge for management accounting (pp 19-25). New York: CIMA Bromwich, M & Bhimani, A (2009). Retrospect and Prospect (pp. 47- 54). New York: CIMA Butler, R.J., Astley, W.G, Hickson, D.J., Mallory, G., & Wilson, D.C. (1979). Strategic decision-making: concepts of content and process (pp 66- 87). International Studies of Management and Organization Chaffee, J (2011). Thinking Critically (pp 19- 44). New York: Cengage Learning Hinsz, V.B., & Nickell, G.S. (2004). "Positive Reactions to Working in Groups in a Study of Group and Individual Goal Decision-Making (pp 57- 74)." Group Dynamics Hubbard, G & Beamish P (2010). Strategic Decision making: In strategic management (pp 112-142). Sydney: Pearson Janis, I (1972). Victims of Groupthink (pp 57-73). Houghton Mifflin: Boston Johnson, D. & Johnson F (2009). Decision making in Joining together: Group theory and group skills (pp 315-327). New York: Prentice Hall Luthans, F (2005). Organizational Behavior. 10th ed (pp 76-92). McGraw Hill Irwin: Boston Martin, G. L., & Pear, J. (2002). Behavior Modification: What It Is and How to Do It, 7th ed (pp. 67-84). New York: Prentice-Hall. Maznevski, M.L (2004). "Understanding Our Differences: Performance in Decision-Making Groups with Diverse Members (pp. 46-54)." Human Relations Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). The structure of “unstructured”decision processes (pp. 246-275.). Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, Miller, S.J., Hickson, D.J., & Wilson, D.C. (1996). Decision making in organizations. Managing Organizations: Current Issues (pp. 79-92). London: Sage Publications. Nelson, D.L., & Quick, JC (2000). Organizational Behavior. 3rd ed (pp. 122-147). Australia: Southwestern College Publishing Robbins, S, Bergman, R, Stagg, I & Coulter, M, (2006) Foundations of Management 2nd edn, (pp 204-205). Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest Thomas-Hunt, M.C., & Phillips, K.W (2004). "When What You Know is Not Enough: Expertise and Gender Dynamics in Task Groups (pp 81-97)." Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin Van Knippenberg,. De Dreu, D., C.K.W, & A.C. Homan (2004). "Work Group Diversity and Group Performance: An Integrative Model and Research Agenda (pp 57-64)." Journal of Applied Psychology Van de Ven, A. & Delbecq, A (1974). "The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision-Making Processes (pp 41- 63)." Academy of Management Journal Wallach, M., Kogan N, & D Bern (1962). Group influence on individual risk taking (pp 54-67). Journal of abnormal and social psychology Read More