Decision-Making at The Games Forum Company - Case Study Example

Name Unit Class Introduction The purpose of this report is to analyse decision making at The Games Forum Company. The company deals with design, production and sales of games. The Games Forum has expanded since its inception and has a well structured management. Rick, who is the company manager came up with a decision to expand to china without consulting his executive team. The decision by the manager led to conflict as there was lack of consultation among the executives. The decision making framework is not all inclusive making it hard for smooth implementation of decision. The Game Forum is composed of an executive team who are well qualified and could have helped Rick in making the decision through consultation. Having consultation in decision making leads to smooth implementation and support from everyone (Stanovich & West 651). This report will utilise a psychological perspective in identifying the issues with Rick’s decision making. The report will also give recommendations on how Rick can improve decision making in the organisation. Analysis Decision making framework at The Game Forum The framework used in coming up with decisions have a profound effect on the quality of the decision made. According to Messick (26), the decision maker can be an individual or a group. Despite this, decisions made in companies and organisations are assumed to be made by the management. In the case of The Game Forum, the decision making body is the executives. Despite this, Rick who is the manager and member of the executive dominates in making the decision. Rick had been the company manager for a long time and enabled the company to expand since its humble beginning. In real sense, decisions that are made at the Game Forum are individually made by the manager. In such an instance when the decision is made by one person, the quality is compromised (Fernandes 41). The compromise in quality is due to fact that there is limited information to the individual as well as few options. At the Game Forum, the manager decision to expand to China was based on his own knowledge and reasoning. Hastie & Dawes (36) asserts that when making decision alone, the possibility of being rationally bounded increases. He had failed to consider the feasibility of his expansion plans and the potential risk the venture would bring to the company. This is proved by other executives who see the decision to compromise the economic interest of the company. The decision making framework at the game Forum is a threat to the sustainable expansion strategy for the company. The framework lacks consultation which is vital for sustainable development (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 42). Sociological perspective Looking at the decision making process at The Game Forum in a sociological perspective, it can lead to conflicts in the organisation. Having conflicts related to decision may lead to effects on the quality and the way in which the decision is implemented (Johnson & Johnson 61). The manager made the decision without any consultation with other executives. This lead to a situation where the decision making process was by an individual rather than a group. The main drawback of this type of decision making process is the fact that the executive may feel not committed to implement the decision (Hastie & Dawes 43). Executives’ commitment is very important as it ensures there is a significant contribution towards the success of decision. The fact that the executive were not involved in decision making may have contributed to the criticism. The executive team openly criticised the decision apart from Josh. Sue reacted emotionally due to fact that she was the marketing director and there was a need for her consultation. Rick dismissed her claims and rashes at her publicly. The reaction of Rick towards Sue may have contributed to poor commitment among the directors in implementing the decision. Conformity phenomenon Rick pressurizes the executive to support his decisions. This is conformity bias where others are expected to behave in a certain way presented by others (Hastie & Dawes 39). The lack of support for the decision to expand to china was apparent in the meeting where the executives felt they were left out in making the decision. The lack of social conformity among the executives was an indicator that the decision lacked support. To achieve active support for the decision, there must be support by all involved (Paulus & Nijstad 51). This meant that the manager’s decision would not be implemented appropriately despite forcing the executive to support it. Use of conformity bias was evident in the manager’s decision making. This refers to selecting evidence unwittingly and interpreting it with an aim of supporting a certain belief. This process occurs without even knowing. The person searches for information that will support the hypothesis but not the alternative. This is where a person assumes the hypothesis is true and supports it without looking at other alternatives (Sutter, 38). This is evident in Rick way of making decision. Rick supports his decision and fails to look for alternatives which might be true as well. Using the conformity bias, it is easy to undervalue other people opinion and overlook evidence on flaws. The decision made by Rick overlooks all the evidence that points against it. Belief perseverance Belief perseverance is another bias that is seen in Rick decision. This occurs in situation where people tend to cling to the wrong idea despite the evidence that discredits it (Stanovich & West 650). Rick has been proved wrong through the executive reports and also at the first meeting. It is clear that his decision to expand to china have been flawed as seen in the executives’ feedback. Sue tells it openly and it appears that apart from Josh, the executives are not for his idea. Despite the amount of evidence against his decision, rick ignores it and pushes for implementation. Rick beliefs that his idea is feasible despite the negative reception and evidence it has received. Critical discussion Strengths and weakness of the decision Rick’s decision only strength lie on the fact that he has been involved in making other strategic decisions in the past. According to the case study, Rick has managed to raise the company from humble beginning to the level it is. This can be attributed to his ability to come up with strategic decisions. This means that though his decision lacks support, he might prove the executive wrong if it succeeds. The main weakness to Rick decision lies on lack of consultation. Rick makes his decisions alone and does not consult other members of the executive. Lack of consultation in decision making may lead to other members being uncommitted (Fernandes 21). The executives are not happy with his way of management since he comes up with the decisions alone. Lack of consultation when making decisions lead to poor decisions which may lead the organisation to problems (Johnson & Johnson 39). When some of the participants are left out in decision making, they tend to rebel in implementation. There is also aspect of Rick being self righteous which might contribute to poor decision making. This is seen when he disregards other people inputs in his decision making. He is not ready to take criticism which might improve the decision. Rick decision is bound to be affected by group think. This is a psychological phenomenon that distorts the process of decisions making. Group think occurs when the members in a group decides to reduce conflict and comes up with a consensus (Messick et al. 31). The members of the executives may stifle their misgivings about the decision and agree to the implementation despite the inappropriateness of the decision. This undermines the wisdom of the group as they are forced to foster self-righteousness. Rick undermines the executive critical thinking by forcing them to implement the decision. Josh is a perfect example of an executive who have been influenced into group thinking. He does not voice his misgiving about the decision but supports it. Decision to expand is a strategic one and requires adequate support for it to be successful. Rick decision lacks proper support from the executives making it hard to be implemented. Almost every executive has his misgiving about the decision. Lack of support may lead to the executives not being able to meet the deadline as seen. According to the case, each of the executive worked mostly alone without consulting each other. This is a clear indication that Rick decision will not be supported appropriately. Being a critical decision, poor support can compromise the company sustainable growth (Moore & Lowenstein 196). Risk decision lacks rationality. This is due to fact that he have not analysed all the possible alternatives and consulted well before coming to a conclusion. Rational decision making helps in selecting the choice with the highest probability of a positive outcome. Rationality helps to optimise the outcome through the process (Hastie & Dawes 25). Lack of rationality in his decision making implies that Rick’s decision is affected by biases. Biases refer to the shortcuts used in reasoning. Recommendations For Rick to make an effective decision there is a need to involve all the executives. This is due to fact that making the decision alone increases the chances of comprising the quality. There is also need to know that making the decisions alone reduces the available information for the managers. Rick should make sure that he engages all the executives. Inputs from different people help in making high quality decisions. In this case, Sue has great capability in marketing which can be valuable in making the decisions. Including others in decision making reduces chances of bounded rationality as there are more options (Paulus & Nijstad 43). The resistance that is being experienced in the company is due to fact that all the executives have not been involved in coming up with the decision. If the executives were involved, it could have been easier to look at the feasibility of the decision. It becomes hard to implement the decision in which the executives were not involved. This is due to fact that they perceive the manager does not value their inputs. When coming up with a decision, Rick should make sure he does not force it on others. In this case, Rick forces the executive to implement the decision against their will. He ignores their warning and requires them to come up with implementation plan. Forcing the executive to implement a decision may lead to poor outcomes as they are likely to engage in group think. Group thinking ignores all the weakness with a decision and implements it through consensus in a bid to avoid conflict (Paulus & Nijstad 31). The executives are forced to implement so that they avoid conflict. Rick has to avoid conformity bias when coming up with final decisions. This is due to fact that he may ignore the best alternatives and seek information that justifies his decision. Rick decision is based on biased information as he did not consult for alternatives. When coming up with a critical decision, it’s important to avoid any bias (Cooper, 13). Conformity bias can be eliminated through use of consultation and seeking information in unbiased manner. Decision making should be free from belief perseverance (Sutter 54). This bias involves supporting a decision despite the evidence that it’s wrong. Rick is highly affected by belief perseverance which he should eliminate in his future decisions. Rick beliefs that his decision is right though apart from Josh, other executives give him their warnings and misgiving about the decision. He disregards evidence of flaws by calling other executives as alarmists. Having belief perseverance in decision making can lead to poor and illogical decisions. Rick should exercise rational decision making in future decisions. This is due to fact that having rational decisions reduces chances of failure (Bazerman & Moore 46). Making vital strategic decisions should involve a rigorous process that should be done with proper consultation. Rick does not consult and makes his decision alone. This makes it possible for his final decision to be affected by biases. Though not all bias are wrong in decision making, it is important to be rational when making a critical decision (Hastie & Dawes, 27). Rick decision determines the company future hence should be carried out rationally. Conclusion This report has been able to analyse the decision making process at The Game Forum. This has been done through psychological perspectives which have identified the issues. Decision making process by Rick, who is the manager is affected by bounded rationality and lack of consultation. Using a sociological perspective, the report has established that none of the executive was involved in decision making. This contributed to conflict among the executive and manager and led to poor implementation. The Game Forum should embark on the recommendations so that decisions are made by all executives to allow smooth execution. By involving the entire executive team, Rick can benefit from support from members during implementation. References Bazerman, Max . & Moore, Don. Judgment in Managerial Decision making (7thed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2008. Cooper, Joel. Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classic theory. London: Sage Publications, 2007. Fernandes, Thomas. Strategic leadership and decision making 2. Chandni Chowk, Delhi, Global Media, 2009. Hastie, Reid. & Dawes, Robyn. M. Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of judgment and decision making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000. Johnson, D & Johnson, F. Decision Making. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making, Sydney, NSW: Pearson, 2009. Messick, David et al. Social decision making: Social dilemmas, social values, and ethical judgments. New York: Routledge, 2010. Moore, Don., & Lowenstein, George. “Self-interest, automaticity, and the psychology of conflict of interest.” Social Justice Research, 17.2(2004): 189-202. Paulus, Paul. B.,& Nijstad, Bernard. A. Group creativity: Innovation Through collaboration .New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003. Saunders, Mark., Lewis, Philip. & Thornhill, Adrian. Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall, 2007. Stanovich, Keith. E., & West, R. F. “Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate.” Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23.1 (2000): 645-665. Sutter, Matthias. “Individual behaviour and group membership: Comment.” American Economic Review, 99.5 (2009): 2247-2257. Read More