Sometimes Social Influences And Societal Pressures Can Influ

Sometimes Social Influences And Societal Pressures Can Influence Decis

Sometimes social influences and societal pressures can influence decision making for the better and sometimes for the worse. In addition to these pressures, there are risks that need to be evaluated and measured when making decisions. In this assignment, you will reflect on decisions you made using social influence, persuasion, and risk taking that went awry. Examine a time when you were involved in decision making that went awry as a result of protocols, social norms, or persuasive techniques. If you do not want to use an example from your business or personal experience, you can select a journal article on which you can base your assignment.

Here are some key words to help you find an article for this assignment: Decision making Risk taking Persuasion Social heuristics Write a 3–5-page paper in Word format that addresses the following: Describe a decision-making scenario using your business experience, personal decision making or cited journal article; include an example of the decision-making process, describe the risk, and whether persuasion was used. What were the social heuristics? Explain the incentives in this scenario. Were they effective? Identify the risks and the potential decision biases in your scenario. Propose the corrective steps that should have been taken to overcome these biases. If a risk assessment was conducted how did this affect the decision-making process? Analyze your scenario for what happened in terms of social heuristics. Explain how decisions were made and the social factors that shaped the decision-making environment. Discuss the greatest challenges to sound decision-making in your scenario. Critique the decision-making process used by the sponsor(s) and leader(s) of the decision. Identify the mistakes made by the sponsor(s), leader(s), and team members or others impacted by the decision during the implementation of the decision.

Paper For Above instruction

The complexities of decision-making processes are often influenced by social and societal pressures, which can sway individuals or groups toward decisions that may not be optimal. This paper explores a personal decision-making scenario affected by social influence, persuading techniques, and associated risks, highlighting how these factors interact and sometimes lead to undesirable outcomes. By analyzing this scenario, I will identify social heuristics, incentives, potential biases, and propose corrective steps aimed at fostering more objective and beneficial decision-making.

In a professional setting, I was once involved in a project where the decision to proceed was heavily influenced by group conformity and persuasive tactics. The scenario involved launching a new product line which senior management supported strongly due to perceived market trends. The decision-making process was initiated by top executives who believed that following industry fads and aligning with competitor actions would ensure success. The social influence at play was the tendency for employees to conform to leadership’s opinions to maintain harmony or avoid conflict, known as the social heuristic of conformity (Cialdini, 2009). The persuasive energies of executive members emphasized potential market capture and growth, which swayed the team to overlook certain red flags.

The risks associated with this decision were considerable. Rushing to market without thorough market analysis could lead to poor product fit, wasted resources, and damage to brand reputation. Persuasive appeals created incentives for team members to support the decision, even when reservations existed. These incentives were effective in rallying support but ultimately clouded objective judgment, illustrating decision bias such as groupthink, where the desire for consensus overrides critical evaluation (Janis, 1972). Furthermore, the social heuristic of authority bias meant subordinate team members were less likely to challenge leadership’s assertions, amplifying the risk of oversight.

To address these biases, a series of corrective steps should have been implemented. First, conducting a formal risk assessment and including dissenting opinions would have provided alternative viewpoints and mitigated groupthink. Instituting devil’s advocate sessions could have challenged prevailing assumptions and uncovered potential flaws. Additionally, ensuring decision-makers were aware of common biases—such as authority bias and conformity—could facilitate more deliberate and reflective decision-making (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Ensuring transparent communication and encouraging constructive dissent are crucial in this regard.

A critical analysis reveals that social heuristics significantly shaped the decision environment. The desire to conform and respect authority led to a lack of critical evaluation and suppressed dissent. The social factors—pressure to adopt leadership’s view and adhere to industry trends—created an environment where failure to question decisions was the norm. Consequently, the greatest challenge was maintaining objectivity amid social influences that favored conformity and obedience over critical analysis and skepticism, which are essential for sound decisions (Asch, 1956).

Assessing the decision process used by leadership exposes notable mistakes. The sponsors prioritized rapid market entry driven by competitive pressures, without adequate analysis of potential pitfalls. Leaders failed to seek diverse viewpoints or resist persuasive pressures, leading to a one-sided view of the opportunity. During implementation, a lack of ongoing risk monitoring and feedback mechanisms compounded the problem, allowing early warnings to be ignored. The team’s failure to challenge leadership or recommend alternative strategies reflects a breakdown in constructive dissent and critical oversight.

In conclusion, decision-making in social contexts is susceptible to biases and heuristics rooted in social influence. Recognizing these social factors and implementing corrective measures such as structured risk assessments, dissent encouragement, and bias awareness can improve decision quality. Leaders must foster an environment where critical thinking is valued over conformity, ensuring decisions are based on comprehensive analysis rather than social pressure. This approach minimizes risks and enhances organizational resilience in dynamic environments.

References

• Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1-70.
• Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
• Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. Free Press.
• Johnson, C., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Default options in organ donation decisions. Science, 302(5649), 1338-1339.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill.
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
• Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. H. (2008). Libertarian paternalism. The American Economic Review, 98(2), 114–118.