ob - decision making
DESCRIPTION
Partially based on the Kreitner/Kinicki (2009, McGraw Hill/Irwin) textbook with updated data from a variety of cited sources.TRANSCRIPT
Ch 12 – Decision MakingBUSA 220 – Wallace – Spring 2012
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
• Problem – gap between an actual and desired situation.
A rental car company notices a dip in revenue from 12 months ago. The branch is located in a very congested area and hybrid vehicles can travel in express lanes. Customers complain that they would like environmentally-friendly cars to choose from to rent.
Problem Solving
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
•Historical Cues – Trends?•Scenario Technique – Multiple futures.•Stakeholder (not stockholder) Perceptions
Problem Solving Methods
Graphic Source: geraldnunn.files.wordpress.com
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
• Decision making –
Identifying and choosing solutions that lead to a desired end result• First, determine
responses or actions necessary to alleviate a problem• Second, choose the best
alternative
Decision Making
Graphic Source: http://www.secondaryrti.com/problemSolving/psModel
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
• Rational Model logical approach to decision making
1. Identifying the problem
2. Generating alternative solutions
3. Selecting solution
4. Implementing and Evaluating
Models
Graphic Source: www.the-happy-manager.com
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
• Do decision makers actually make decisions this way?
• What goal does the rational model assume the decision maker has?
• What assumptions does the rational decision making model make?
Rational Model
http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci410/nm11/m11001.gif
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
• Based on premise that decision making is not rational
• Assume that:• Decision making is
uncertain• Not all information is
available or known• Making optimal decisions
is difficult
• Simon’s Normative Model• Garbage Can Model
Non-Rational Models
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
• Decision makers are guided by bounded rationality• constraints that restrict
decision making• Decision making is
characterized by• Limited information
processing• Satisficing
•Choosing a standard that meets a minimum standard of acceptance
Intelligence
Design
Choice
Simon’s Normative Model
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
• Decision making is sloppy and haphazard
• Decisions are made as a result of the interaction between:• Problems, solutions,
participants, and choice opportunities
• What are the implications of the Garbage Can model?
Garbage Can Model
http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci410/nm11/m11006.gif
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009Source: www.dilbert.com
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
Integrating Normative & Rational• Stable, cause & effect is clear• RATIONAL MODELSimple context
• Cause & effect is clear but multiple solutions would work
• RATIONAL MODEL; investigate optionsComplicated context
• One right answer; cause & effect unclear• EXPERIMENT; test options; seek a creative
solutionComplex context
• Cause & effect constantly changing• Act to establish order; then identify patterns to
manage the problemChaotic context
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
• Availability heuristic – use information readily available in memory
• Representativeness heuristic – using similar situations to predict the occurrence of an event
• Confirmation bias – decide before investigating then seek confirming evidence
• Anchoring bias – decisions are influenced by initial information, data, stereotypes
Decision Making Bias
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
• Overconfidence bias – tendency to be overconfident about estimates or forecasts
• Hindsight bias – knowledge of an outcome influences our belief about the probability that we could have predicted the outcome earlier
• Framing bias – tendency to consider risks about gains differently than risks about losses
• Escalation of commitment bias – tendency to stick to an ineffective course of action when it is unlikely that the bad situation can be reversed
Decision Making Bias
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
Which of the following will reduce escalation of commitment? (A=Reduce, B=Won’t reduce)1. Set minimum targets for performance, and have
decision makers compare their performance with these targets
2. Have the same person have decision making authority over all aspects of an on-going project
3. Tie the person’s reputation to the success of the project
4. Provide more frequent feedback about project completion and costs
5. Make decision makers aware of costs of persistence
What Do You Think?
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
• Knowledge Management• Implementing systems and
practices that increase the sharing of knowledge and information throughout an organization.
• What specific actions can organizations take to facilitate knowledge management?
Decision Making Dynamics
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
A. Troy is very effective at conducting client meetings. He knows what to say when and manages the discussion to maximize the impact of the meeting for all parties. (TACIT)
B. Sandra has established a process for efficiently and accurately conducting financial analyses. She has established a spreadsheet accompanied with a set of instructions. (EXPLICIT)
• Which of the following types of information would be easier to share or capture? Why?
Knowledge Forms
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
Two dimensions of individual style:• Value Orientation
• Task vs. People/Social• Tolerance for Ambiguity
• High vs. Low• Your text has a
questionnaire to determine your style
Decision Making Styles
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
Decision Making Styles
Analytical Conceptual
Directive Behavioral
Tasks and TechnicalConcerns
People and SocialConcerns
Value Orientation
Low
High
Tole
ranc
e fo
r Am
bigu
ity
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
• People often use more than one decision making style.• Is one style better than another?•What is the benefit to you to understanding different decision making styles?
What Do You Think?
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
Intuition
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
Ethical Decision Tree
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
•Which of the following research findings are true? (A-True, B-False)
1. Groups are more efficient than individuals.
2. Groups are more confident in their choices than individuals.
3. The larger the group, the poorer the decision quality.
What Do You Think?
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
1) If additional information would increase the quality of the decision
2) If acceptance is important
3) If people can be developed through their participation
When to use Groups vs. Individuals
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
• A process to generate a quantity of ideas
• Quantity is more important than quality
• Criticism is withheld• Build on others ideas• Create status-free
environment
Brainstorming
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009Graphic Source: www.bioteams.com
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009Graphic Source: www.bioteams.com
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
1. Group meets to discuss a problem
2. Individuals generate ideas independently
3. Everyone shares an idea from his/her list and they are recorded but not discussed
4. Group discusses all ideas
5. Group members vote for their top choices
Nominal Group Technique
Graphic Source: www.mindspring.com
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
1. Manager identifies an issue to investigate
2. Questionnaire is sent to others and returned to manager
3. Manager summarizes responds and sends feedback to participants
4. Participants send their feedback and comments
5. Cycle repeats until issue is resolve or all relevant information is gathered.
Delphi Technique
Graphic Source: Canada Institutes of Health Research
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
• CREATIVITY is thinking up new things. INNOVATION is doing new things. ~ Theodore Levitt
• Process of developing something new or unique
Three types…• Creation: entirely new• Synthesis: combines
existing• Modification:
improvement
Creativity and Innovation
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
Creativity Model
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009http://www.excelsior-learning.com/igniteyourimagination.html
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
Which of the following will foster creativity? (A-Yes, B-No)
1. Punishing mistakes or ideas that fail
2. Allowing time for fun and playing around
3. Holding people accountable for creative ideas
4. Emphasize the importance of taking action or generating output
5. Encouraging discussion of “half-baked” ideas
6. Rewarding creativity
7. Establishing a rigid, hierarchical corporate culture
What do You Think?
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
Design Thinking• Involve design thinkers before
direction has been setBegin at the beginning
• Factor in human behavior, needs, and preferencesTake a human-centered
approach
• Encourage rapid experimentation and prototypingTry early and often
• Look for opportunities to co-create with customers and consumersSeek outside help
Source: Design Thinking, Harvard Business Review, June 2008
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
Design Thinking• Manage a portfolio of innovation
including incremental and revolutionary projects
Blend big & small projects
• Rethink funding approach based on opportunitiesBudget to the pace of innovation
• Hire from interdisciplinary programs of DesignFind talent any way you can
• Plan assignments so design thinkers go from inspiration to ideation to implementation
Design for the cycle
Source: Design Thinking, Harvard Business Review, June 2008
Krietner/Kinicki, 2009
You can’t find the right answers if you’re asking the wrong questions.
By John C Maxwell