Managing under Uncertainty - Jenny Lu - Case Study Example

Assessment 3: Personal Case Study Reflection Introduction The provided workplace scenario mainly involves Jenny Lu, a recent graduate recruit who has been placed in a temporary position of authority. Jenny has been appointed to lead an Education Centre project. The decision to appoint Jenny as the project leader is marked by a lot of controversy mainly because Romeo, a more experienced senior staff was overlooked. As the project leader she is faced with a number of complex challenges and issues that require effective decision making in order to realise success. For instance, she has to make decisions regarding the two people who will lead the presentation and the role that other members of staff will play in the course of the project. Jenny’s decision making issues are further compounded when she accidentally overhead Romeo’s telephone conversation which may suggest that he is disclosing sensitive company information with a rival firm. This scenario presents a serious ethical dilemma that requires effective decision making. In reference to different academic theories, models and frameworks explored in this course, this report seeks to critically reflect on decision making issues emerging from a complex workplace scenario. Foremost, the report highlights the key decision making issues evident in the provided scenario. Secondly, it critically explores some of the underlying causes and influences of these decision making issues. Lastly, a personal reflection on how I would have dealt with these issues is provided. Decision Making Issues The office scenario presented in the video highlights different complex issues that call for decision making. First, the absence of Avril, the branch manager in the office for a week due to the Corporate Social Responsibility Conference she had to attend in Dublin imposed the need for her to make a decision regarding who should head the Education Centre project. Avril decided to appoint Jenny Lu, as the project leader. This decision is a non-programmed decision mainly because it involves a unique situation and does not occur routinely (McKee, 2010). The fact that Avril overlooked Romeo who is more experienced, and appointed Jenny instead to head the project, raises some questions on what factors or issues might have influenced her decision. Following Jenney’s appointment as the project leader, she was tasked with the duty of delegating roles to the team. In this case, she was expected to make decisions regarding the two people who will lead the presentation and the role that other member of staff will play in the course of the project. One of the issues emanating from this scenario revolves around the power relationship that Jenny has with Romeo. Romeo has worked for the organisation for many years and has more experience than Jenny when it comes to leading projects. As a result, Romeo has some sense of entitlement and feels that he is more suitable to lead and direct the project than Jenny. Being the project leader, Jenney has to make decisions pertaining to how she will manage the group, improve teamwork and capitalize on Romeo’s expertise in order to make the project a success. Another important decision that Jenney may have to make pertains to whether she should report to Avril regarding Romeo’s secretive phone call and rumours that he is disclosing to rival companies about the Education Center project. This decision is likely to evoke cognitive dissonance (Teal et al., 2003), mainly because there are severe risks involved in whatever choice she makes. For instance, if she decides not report to Avril, there is likelihood that in the event that these rumours are true, the project could be jeopardised. As the project leader, she could be held responsible for not addressing issues head on and failing to report incidences pertaining to disloyalty in the company. On the other hand, if she chooses to act as a whistle blower and reports to Avril regarding the possibility of Romeo’s espionage attempts, there is likelihood that this could jeopardize the cohesiveness of the group and affect the performance of the group in the project. This is mainly because there is no substantial evidence that Romeo is indeed disclosing the company’s confidential information. Jenny’s allegations are mainly founded on what she overheard Romeo saying over the telephone. Therefore, if she decides to report Romeo she would be acting with bounded rationality (Tolbert & Hall, 2008). Bounded rationality is a decision making model that holds that the ability for human beings to completely make rational and objective decisions is limited due to time limitations, cognitive limitations and limitations in the information that they have (Teale et al., 2003; Tolbert & Hall, 2008). It may seem rational for Jenny to report Romeo in order to protect the project and the interests of the company. However given that, she does not have adequate information or proof that Romeo is disclosing information to a rival company based on the “official theory” of management and normative model of decision making , this decision can be termed as irrational(Teale et al., 2003; Tolbert & Hall, 2008). Analysis of Issues A critical look at the office scenario presented in the video, it is evident that there are several underlying factors that caused or contributed decision making issues highlighted in the section above. Firstly, issues pertaining to Avril’s decision to overlooked Romeo who is more experienced and appoint Jenny instead, to head the project can be linked to cognitive dissonance. In relations to decision making, the theory of cognitive dissonance illustrates that individuals experience cognitive dissonance whenever they have to make a choice between two contradictory beliefs. In order to reduce dissonance, most individuals tend to attach negative value to the choice that they reject (Teale et al., 2003). For instance, there is likelihood that Avril was faced with a dilemma on whether to appoint Romeo as the project leader due to his expertise and experience or whether to appoint Jenny, an employee that is less experienced but reliable and promising. After making the decision to appoint Jenny as the project leader she attached negative value to Romeo. She pointed out that although Romeo is experienced, he has been arriving to work late and taking extended lunch breaks. This shows that, some sought of dissonance was experienced before this decision was made (Teale et al., 2003). In reference to the social identity theory, Avril’s perceptual processes may have also played a significant role in influencing her decision to appoint Jenny as the project leader. Perception can be described as the process through which individuals interpret and organise their sensory information so as to create meaning about something. According to Robbins & Judge (2011), there are three key factors that significantly affect an individual’s perceptual processes they include; the perceiver (attitudes, interests, expectations, experience motives etc), the perceived (backround, novelty, similarity, differences etc) and the context (settings and timing). There is likelihood that her expectations, experience in the job and perception about Romeo’s behaviour influenced her decision. Nevertheless, it is plausible to argue that perceptual process biases such as self-fulfilling prophesy, halo effect, recency effect and contrast effects may have taken form in the course of making that decision. Most members of the company expected that Romeo would be appointed as the head of the project due to his experience and expertise. However, the fact that Avril was appointed, though she is less experienced and this was her first time leading such as crucial project confirms the likelihood of contrast effect bias where a less favourable evaluation precedes a more favourable evaluation. This decision may have also been as a result of a recency and halo effect bias. In this case, Romeo’s recent behaviour of coming late and taking long lunch breaks was used as the dominant information used to determine who will lead a very important project. As observed earlier, Jenny’s ethical dilemma on whether or not to report her misgivings about Romeo’s loyalty can be considered as one that is based on bound rationality. This is mainly because there are time and informational limitations associated. Besides having limited information about Romeo’s espionage attempt, the company is at a critical point where they have to deliver on a very crucial proposal within a week’s time thus Jenny’s decision may be affected by time constraints. Issues emanating from this decision can be attributed to limitations in rationality. Based on the rational model of decision making, a decision maker is a continuum of rationality. This model assumes that all information available and therefore what person ought to do in order to make a rational decision is to align their objectives with those of the organisation, clearly outline a set of preference or alternatives from which to choose from and process the information by calculating ‘subjective expected utility’. Subsequently, a choice or decision should be made based on the preference or alternatives that have the highest quantifiable utility or optimal output (Griffin, 2008). Personal Reflection This course has provided a lot of invaluable insights regarding critical thinking, decision making and management under uncertainty. Through the academic theories, frameworks and models that we have been exposed to during this course, I believe that I have been equipped with relevant knowledge, skills and attitudes that will enable me to become an effective manager and decision maker in my future professional practice. Based on the insights I have gained in the course of this study, I believe that I would have addressed the decision making issues emanating from this situation differently. Foremost, when it comes to deciding who should head the Education Center project and whether to report misgiving about Romeo, I would use Harrison’s six stage model of decision making. This model involves a set of six steps namely; setting objectives, identification of alternatives, evaluations of alternatives, make the choice, implementing decisions and subsequently following up and controlling the decision made. Personally, I think that this model would be suitable for this scenario mainly because it helps to minimise risks. It is worth noting that in any context decision making always involves some degree of risks (Teale et al., 2003).However, the use of this model can help to minimise risks since it allows for scrupulous evaluation of various alternatives or choices and even after the decision is made this model leaves room for follow-up in order to ascertain that the decision made is able to achieve the managerial objectives that were set out initially. When it comes to the decision that Jenny has to make regarding the two people who will lead the presentation and the role that other member of staff will play in the course of the project, I would rely on group communication in order to make decisions pertaining to what roles each member of the group will play in the project. According to Costello & Zalkind (1999), group communication networks can be suitable for non-routine decisions. Such communications are likely promote creativity and enhance higher levels of satisfaction among members. Since Jenny was also charged with the task of coming up with a team-building strategy, relying on group communication would help to enhance team work and group cohesiveness. The success of the Education Centre is highly dependent on how effective the group can synergise their efforts and work together to accomplish the set out tasks. Therefore, if I was the project leader, I would engage the group members, seek their opinion and involve them in deciding what role that they can take up in the project. This would help to instil a sense of responsibility in the project and enhance the cohesiveness of the group (Forsyth, 2010). Conclusion In reference to different academic theories, models and frameworks explored in this course, this report has analysed three main decision making issues evident in the provided workplace scenario. The report has explored decision making issues emanating from Avril’s decision to appoint Jenny as the project leader, Jenny’s task to delegate roles for the project and the ethical dilemma on whether she should report her misgivings about Romeo. On reflection, I suggest the need to use Harrison’s six stage model of decision making and group communication in order to realise better decision making outcomes. References Costello, T.W. & Zalkind, S.S. (1999). Communication Networks. In Harrison, The Managerial Decision-Making Process. (5th ed). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Forsyth, D.R (2010). Group Dynamics. Belmont CA: Cengage Learning. Griffin, R.W. (2008). Management. New York: Cengage Learning McKee, A. (2010). The Human Side of Planning: Decision making and critical thinking. In Management: A focus on leaders, 1st Edn., (pp. 176 – 209). Sydney: Pearson Australia. Robbins, S. & Judge, T. (2011). Personality and values. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson (Eds.), Managing Under Uncertainty (pp.200-233). Frenchs Forest: Pearson. Teale, M., Dispenza, V., Flynn, J. & Currie, D. (2003). Group Processes. In Management decision-making: towards an Integrative Approach, 1st Edn. , (pp. 273-300). United Kingdom: Pearson Education. Tolbert, P. & Hall, R. (2008). Decision-making. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson (Eds.), Managing Under Uncertainty (pp.28-38). Frenchs Forest: Pearson. Read More