Chapter 6: Managerial Decision Making

Chapter 6managerial Decision Making 2020 Cengage Learning May Not B

Identify the types of decisions and problems in managerial decision-making, including programmed and nonprogrammed decisions, and explain how managers face different levels of certainty, risk, uncertainty, and ambiguity. Describe the classical rational model, the administrative model, and the political model of decision-making, along with their characteristics. Outline the six steps in the managerial decision-making process, from recognizing a requirement to evaluating and providing feedback. Discuss how managers' decision styles impact their approach to decision-making—such as directive, analytical, conceptual, and behavioral styles—and explain common biases and errors that lead to poor decisions, including anchoring bias, sunk cost effect, confirmation bias, and overconfidence. Explore innovative decision-making techniques like brainstorming, data-driven decision-making, debate, and strategies for avoiding escalating commitments and learning from decisions through postmortem reviews.

Paper For Above instruction

Effective managerial decision-making is vital for organizational success, requiring a nuanced understanding of different types of decisions, associated problems, and decision-making processes. The primary distinction between programmed and nonprogrammed decisions forms the foundation of decision analysis. Programmed decisions are routine, repetitive, and governed by established rules or procedures, often making decision processes straightforward. Nonprogrammed decisions, in contrast, are novel, complex, and require creative or analytical approaches due to their unique nature and high stakes, often demanding tailored solutions (Eisenberg & Goodall, 2020).

Decision-making occurs under varying conditions of certainty, risk, uncertainty, and ambiguity, each presenting distinct challenges. Under certainty, all information and outcomes are known, enabling straightforward decisions. Risk involves known probabilities and potential outcomes, which requires assessing these risks to optimize choices (Simon, 1997). Uncertainty is characterized by incomplete information about alternatives and outcomes, compelling managers to rely on judgment or estimation, thereby increasing the potential for errors. Ambiguity presents the most significant challenge, with unclear goals, undefined alternatives, and unavailable outcome data, often resulting in 'wicked decisions'—complex problems with conflicting goals and changing circumstances that restrict straightforward resolution (Rittel & Webber, 1973).

The classical or rational decision-making model assumes managers act rationally, systematically analyzing options based on logic and economic principles. This model prescribes a normative framework outlining how decisions should be made to maximize organizational benefits. However, in real-world contexts, managers often cannot achieve perfect rationality due to cognitive limitations; hence, the administrative model is more descriptive. This model introduces the concept of bounded rationality, emphasizing constrained decision-making due to limited information-processing capacity. Managers tend to satisfice—selecting the first viable solution that meets acceptable criteria—rather than exhaustively evaluating all options (Simon, 1947). Intuition also plays a vital role, with experienced managers relying on quick judgments based on past experiences, complemented by quasi-rational approaches that blend intuition with analytical thinking (Dane, 2011).

The political model recognizes that decision-making often involves conflicting interests among managers and stakeholders. Coalitions—informal alliances supporting specific goals—are common, and coalition-building becomes an essential process in shaping organizational decisions under conditions of limited information and high uncertainty. This model acknowledges power dynamics and negotiation as integral to successful decision outcomes (Cyert & March, 1963).

The six stages of managerial decision-making encompass recognizing a problem or opportunity, diagnosing and analyzing underlying causes, developing alternative solutions, selecting the most appropriate alternative, implementing the decision, and evaluating the results. Recognizing a problem involves establishing whether organizational performance falls short of goals or whether potential opportunities exist to exceed current objectives. Diagnosis critically explores root causes, often utilizing tools like the '5 Whys' to probe deeper than superficial explanations, allowing managers to address fundamental issues rather than symptoms (Liker, 2004).

Developing alternatives requires creativity and analytical prowess, especially in nonprogrammed decisions. The best alternative aligns with organizational goals, minimizes risks, and efficiently utilizes resources, while risk propensity influences how much uncertainty managers are willing to accept. Selecting the appropriate solution entails decision criteria like feasibility and desirability, often weighing trade-offs between risk and reward (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).

Implementation demands leadership and communication skills to ensure enacted decisions translate into desired organizational changes. Effective implementation leverages managerial influence, persuasion, and resource allocation. Post-implementation evaluation allows decision-makers to assess effectiveness, make adjustments as needed, and institutionalize learning from successes and failures—akin to conducting postmortems or after-action reviews that foster continuous improvement (Argyris & Schön, 1978).

Decision styles significantly influence how managers approach choices. Directive style managers prefer clear, structured solutions; analytical types consider extensive data before deciding; conceptual decision-makers focus on broad perspectives and involve others through social interactions; while behavioral styles prioritize interpersonal relationships and personal considerations (McGregor, 1960). Recognizing these styles helps in tailoring decision processes to individual strengths and organizational contexts, enhancing effectiveness.

Managers are susceptible to cognitive biases that impair judgment. Anchoring bias occurs when initial impressions disproportionately influence subsequent decisions, often neglecting new information. Sunk cost effect leads managers to continue investing in failing initiatives due to prior commitments, despite evidence suggesting cessation would be more prudent. Confirmation bias causes selective focus on evidence supporting preconceived notions, dismissing contradictory data. Overconfidence results in overestimating one's knowledge or predictive abilities, potentially leading to risky decisions. Awareness of these biases is crucial for implementing checks and balances to improve decision quality (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).

Innovative decision-making techniques aim to foster creativity and mitigate biases. Brainstorming sessions generate numerous solutions through collaborative, unfiltered idea exchange, while electronic brainstorming leverages technology for similar purposes. Evidence-based decision-making emphasizes using rigorous data collection and analysis to guide choices, reducing reliance on intuition alone (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). Avoiding groupthink—a phenomenon where conformity suppresses dissent—requires encouraging diverse viewpoints and conflict during deliberations. Managers should also recognize escalating commitments, resisting the urge to continue investing in poor solutions due to prior expenditures, and instead perform postmortem analyses to learn from each decision outcome, fostering organizational learning (Janis, 1972; Edmondson, 1999).

References

• Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison Wesley.
• Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall.
• Dane, E. (2011). Rationality and intuition in organizational decision making. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1088-1094.
• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
• Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin.
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
• Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer. McGraw-Hill.
• McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. McGraw-Hill.
• Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
• Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. Free Press.
• Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. Free Press.
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.