Assessment cover sheet

Assignment 3

Personal case study reflection

(Sample 2)

Adapted from original student work

by Learning Development © 2012

1

1.INTRODUCTION

This report analyses a situation I faced as the production manager of local preserves company.

The report indicates how failing to formalise and structure a decision-making process when

under coercive and time-induced pressures can intensify personality traits and lead to

decisional paralysis and anxiety. This report also reflects on how I may have contained the

issues at the time if I had utilised academic concepts, models and frameworks to avoid the

negative outcomes.

2. THE DECISION

Due to company growth, I was required to make a decision about expanding our range of

products, and inform the owner of the decision within two weeks. It could be described as a

non-routine and non-programmed complex decision (Malakooti, 2012). To be successful, this

type of managerial decision requires a considered, rational approach derived from the

principle of inclusive utility (Betsch & Held, 2012). Therefore, to gather information relevant

to the decision, I consulted with two experienced sales team managers, Mark and Alan. The

owner directed the retail manager, Con, to moderate the decision in formal meetings.

Through Con, the owner indicated that if a good decision was not made there may be a

significant restructuring of roles within the organisation. In the following two weeks I was

exceptionally stressed, and could neither forward reasonable information, nor achieve an

outcome.

2.1 Stressors

The owner’s tacit threats to job and role security, communicated through Con, induced an

excessive stress reaction in me. My cognitive processes took a central route to being

persuaded of negative outcomes in what is referred to as the elaboration likelihood model

2

(Gerrig, Zimbardo, Campbell, Cumming & Wilkes, 2012). Consequently, I expanded my

expectation and evaluation of negative ramifications.

This stressor obscured my rational approach to the decision-making process. It also elevated

my personality traits aligned to ultra-conservative and self-preservation motivators (Denison,

Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995), whereby I valued the external perception of performance within

the decision more than the quality of the decision-making outcomes. A cognitive response to

second-hand accounts of consequences, such as Con’s communication of the owner’s threats,

can result in a poor decision through stationary dysfunction (Jago, 1982). My efforts to quell

my anxiety were unsuccessful, as I had no feedback to confirm the veracity or extent of this

indirect claim within the organisation.

3. DECISION-MAKING ISSUES

3.1 Satisficing and bounded rationality

I felt pressured by the owner’s allocation of a strict two-week timeframe for a decision. As a

result the decision was subject to bounded rationality (Teale, Dispenza, Flynn & Currie,

2003a) in which available information is limited. Fiscal data was not sourced; instead, we

intuitively evaluated various probabilities of financial outcomes. This situation concurs with

the idea that groups and individuals under time constraints may form unwise or premature

decisions based on imprecise information, often resulting in decision satisficing (Tolbert &

Hall, 2008) rather than seeking the best option.

An effective alternative to this could have been a decision tree model, which graphically

represents decisions (Liua & Leung, 2002). Decision trees formalise sequences of design

with subsequent decision nodes that are more focussed and encourage broader search cycles

(Langley, Minztberg, Pitcher, Posada & Saint-Macary, 1995). Use of a decision tree could

3

have helped me to focus and expand on each alternative. The result may have lessened the

impact of satisficing and may have produced sound data unadulterated by intuitive estimates.

3.2 Heuristic anchoring bias

Solutions to guide reasoning in the decision-making process were often frustrated by my

disregard of more informed input as solutions progressed. This kind of information

discounting can occur because of the heuristic influence of an anchoring bias (Robbins,

Bergman, Stagg & Coulter, 2012), exemplified by my fixation on initial concepts that

dominated the agenda. We could have overcome issues of individual heuristic biases and

controlled the flow of issues in group discussions by adopting the pragmatic strategy of

having a formal agenda process (Langley et al., 1995)

4. GROUP ISSUES

4.1 Unstructured approach and goal drift

The lack of formal structure in our group resulted in decisional goal shifting (Bonaccio &

Dalal, 2006). This happens in groups when ambiguous or non-existent procedures obscure

the processes to goal accomplishment. Goal shifting is a systematic administrative failure

leading to circular arguments and group disequilibrium (Patriotta & Spedale, 2011).

Accordingly, my decision-making process often entailed long myopic discussion loops with

Mark and Alan over previously considered issues, which both slowed the process and shifted

goals.

Alternatively, had I suggested to the group a structured approach as illustrated in the Eight

stage decision making model (Robbins, et al., 2012), more effective protocols would have

been developed to identify and curtail my goal shifts and circular analysis. Clear group

leadership such as this provides structural guidance, and can clarify and enhance group

4

expectations and internal roles (Jago, 1982). This would have resulted in improved

identification of issues and analysis of more alternatives.

4.2 Group frustration

Frustration can be caused by an inability to progress towards goals (Gerrig, et al. 2012).

Production can be blocked by interference and adjournments, which accelerate group

dysfunction (Tasa & Whyte, 2005) and deprive the group of holistic participation (Johnson &

Johnson, 2009). This was evident in our case when, despite having a designated conference

room, Con insisted that the group discuss the decision in a nearby restaurant. This

environment led to interruptions, and, consequently, group frustration. Had the conference

room been used for the decision making process participant frustration would have been

lessened.

4.3 Role and group conflict

Group structure is crucial to the development of a collective decision. It entails having a role-

based balance between task and process orientations of the respective members (Sutcliffe &

McNamara, 2001). The structure of our group was fundamentally imbalanced. Our group

consisted of individuals who could be described as decision task experts, with differing goal

perspectives and priorities indicating potential for latent conflict (Teale, Dispenza, Currie &

Flynn, 2003b).

Mark and Alan’s identical roles represented a distinct subunit (Jones, 2010). Typically, a

subunit is inspired by the context of the customers it serves, and myopically influences the

decision making process (Sutcliffe & McNamara, 2001). This leads to a reduced scope of

group discussions regarding alternative assessments.

5

As the moderator, Con represented a disruptive gatekeeper role in cynically evaluating

alternatives and regulating discussion (Teale et al., 2003). As Con was new to the company,

the group did not accept his autocratic stance, and perceived him as a constructor of vertical

power within an existing horizontal employee grouping (Kaushal & Kwantes, 2006). The

initially minor discord over Con’s role became open and emotive verbal conflict, reflecting an

escalation from perceived conflict to felt conflict (Jones, 2010). Alan and I both reacted by

criticising Con, which did not resolve the issue.

A proactive measure I could have taken to prevent this conflict is the Delphi technique

(Sniezek, 1992), which can address a lack of inclusive discussion among task-orientated

individuals by standardising decision responses.

5. PERSONALITY ISSUES

Frustration, pressure and threats to job security influenced me to delay the decision making

process and avoid the negative consequences. This avoidance can lead to anxiety (Wolfradt

& Dalbert, 2003). Anxiety may also be provoked by the decision-maker’s perception of

threats that exceed his or her capacity to cope, and this perception can lead to rigidity in

responding (Tasa & Whyte, 2005). These concepts may explain my own response, and the

core of my anchoring bias.

My need for a good outcome motivated my amplification of internal conflicts. Mark and

Alan’s procrastinating behaviour constituted a reduced knowledge-sharing environment,

which can inhibit planning and prompt an intuitive approach to tasks (Matzler et al., 2008). It

also engenders an emotional response of frustration in conscientious individuals. This was

relevant to me because, according to the CANOE model (Robbins & Judge, 2011), I have a

propensity for higher conscientiousness personality traits.

6

5.1 Type A personality trait

My frustration provoked in me overt competitive behaviour which is indicative of a Type A

personality (Robbins & Judge, 2010). I incessantly attempted to outperform Craig by multi-

tasking and working excessive hours of overtime which resulted in my having less time to

reflect on decision appraisals. It is a Type A action-emotion response to aggressively achieve

more and more in less and less time (Ahmad, 2010). Workplace personality discords can arise

through such symbiotic relationships between competitive Type A personalities and relaxed

Type B individuals (Trice & Beyer, 1991) like Con.

My action response can be further defined as polyphasic Type A (Chew & Chee-Leong,

1991) in that I have a predisposition to undertake two or more tasks simultaneously at

inappropriate times. This can lead to an inability to complete tasks, and reflects the Type A

trait of failing to plan. Impulsive engagement in operations, rather than planning for the

desired result, creates a cycle of anxiety. Having a formal plan or agenda would have

alleviated my anxiety by focussing my efforts on the decision-making process.

6. CONCLUSION

In the two week timeframe given, our efforts yielded no clear decision outcome, other than

intuitive and emotionally based contributions. My constant anxiety over the outcome and my

reactive behaviour of working excessive and unpaid overtime left me emotionally and

physically drained.

It is clear to me now that our frustration and subsequent dysfunction in the decision-making

process was due to the lack of a range of formal planning and conflict resolution techniques.

Retrospectively, if I had both recognised my own personality traits and employed some

decision-making models at either the formative stage, or in the floundering process, the stress

7

from time pressure and tacit coercions would have been reduced, progress toward a decision

made, and a rational outcome produced.

(2,291 words)

References

Ahmad, M.(2010). Personality traits among entrepreneurial and professional CEO’s in SMEs. International journal of business and management. 5(9), 203-213. Retrieved 09/06/2012 from: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/download/7328/5702.

Betsch, T. & Held, C. (2012). Rational decision making: balancing RUN and JUMP modes of analysis. Journal of mind and society, 11, 69-80. doi: 10.1007/s11299-011-0097-2

Bonaccio, S. & Dalal, R. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organisational sciences. Organisational behaviour and human decision processes 101, 127–151. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001

Chew, I. & Chee-Leong, C. (1991). Type A personality and stress among the Singapore Chinese, Malays and Indians. Journal of personal induced differences, 12(7), 753-758. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(91)90231-Y

Gerrig, R., Zimbardo, P., Campbell, A., Cumming, S. & Wilkes, F. (2012). Social psychology. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp. 449-496). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

Jago, A. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management science. 28(3), pp. 315-336. Retrieved 11/06/2011 from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2630884

Johnson, D. & Johnson, F. (2009). Decision making. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp. 498-551). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

Jones, G. (2010). Managing Conflict, power and politics. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp.573-418). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

Kaushal, R. & Kwantes, C. (2006). The role of culture and personality in choice of conflict management strategy. International journal of intercultural relations.30, 579–603. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.01.001

Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E. & Saint-Macary, J. (1995). Opening up decision making: The view from the black stool. Organization Science. 6(3), 260-279. Retrieved 10/06/2012 from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2635251

8

Liua, A. & Leung, M. (2002). Developing a soft value management model. International journal of project management, 20, 341–349. doi S0263-7863(01)00023-0

Malakooti, B. (2012). Decision making process: typology, intelligence, and optimization. Journal of intelligent manufacturing, 23,733–746. doi 10.1007/s10845-010-0424-1

Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Muller, J., Herting , S. & Mooradian, T. (2008). Personality traits and knowledge sharing. Journal of economic psychology 29, 301–313. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2007.06.004

Parkinson, B. & Simons, G. (2009). Affecting others: Social appraisal and emotion contagion in everyday decision making. Personality and social psychology bulletin. 35, 1071-1084. doi: 10.1177/0146167209336611

Patriotta, G., & Spedale, S. (2011). Micro-interaction dynamics in group decision making: Face games, interaction order and boundary work. Scandinavian journal of management, 27, 362—374. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2011.08.001

Robbins, S. & Judge, T. (2011).Perception and individual Decision making. In Organisational behaviour, 14th Edn, 167-201. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp. 366-401). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

Robbins, S., Bergman, R., Stagg, I. & Coulter, (2012). Decision making: the essence of a manager’s job. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp. 75-105). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

Sniezek, J. (1992). Groups under uncertainty: an examination of confidence in group decision making. Organisational behaviour and human processes, 52, 124-155.

Sutcliffe, K., & McNamara, G. (2001). Controlling decision-making practice in organizations. Organization science,12 (4), 484-501. Retrieved 09/06/2012 from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3085984

Tasa, K., Whyte, G. (2005). Collective efficacy and vigilant problem solving in group decision making: A non-linear model. Organizational behaviour and human decision processes, 96, 119–129. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.01.002

Teale, M., Dispenza, V., Flynn, J. & Currie, D. (2003a). Management decision-making in context. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp. 7-22). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

Teale, M., Dispenza, V., Flynn, J. & Currie, D. (2003b). Group processes. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp. 405-466). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

9

Tolbert, P. & Hall, R. (2008). Decision-making. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp. 28-38). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

Wolfradt, U. & Dalbert, C. (2003). Personality, values and belief in a just world. Personality and individual differences, 35, 1911–1918. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00040-0

Click on Return when you have finished

10

SAMPLE CASE STUDY REPORTS CHECKLIST

1. Read the two example reports and note down why you think they scored highly.

2. Reflect on what you have learned in the MUU academic literacy tutorials (below) and check how these things relate to the two sample reports.

(NB Use this as a checklist for your own work too. Relevant pages from the NBS Student Manual are provided in brackets.)

OVERALL

Reading and note-taking skills (16-27)

Did the writer read widely?

Do you think the writer took notes well?

Do you think the writer/s read critically, i.e. thought about whether decision-making theories were:i) Correctii) Applicable to the writer’s own decision experience?

11

TO HELP YOU JUDGE THE FIRST 3 CRITERIA:

Summary writing (27-28)

Do the reports employ summary writing, where appropriate, to:i) Relate relevant background information and the case study ‘story’ii) Relate the content of relevant theories

Are the summarising sentences concise?Do they include the most necessary information for the reader to understand the argument?

Critical analysis and critical writing (23-25)

Check that the writing:

Separates (or groups) causes, effects and their interrelationships (63-64)

Includes all important issues Explains the key issues Relates issues to broad theory (models, frameworks). Relates specific aspects of these issues to more specific theories. Explains/summarises theories that are being applied to the case Emphasises ideas, rather than the source (author) of the ideas Synthesises ideas from multiple sources The voice of the writer is clear – we “hear” what the writer thinks

Reflective writing (55-58)

Check that the writing:

Explains what could/would/should have been done if there was better knowledge of decision-making theory at the time.

Justifies or explains the reflection with further reference to theory

Find examples in the report/s that demonstrate effective writing in each of these areas.

12

SOMETHING ELSE TO CONSIDER ABOUT EFFECTIVE WRITING:

Style & expression (41-47)Is the work written:

in academic style (formal sentence structure & word choice) in well-structured paragraphs that each focus on one idea (42) in clear sentences (43-44) concisely (no wordiness, no repetition) cohesively (keywords, transitions, signposts & connecting words or

phrases make it ‘flow’) logically (causes & effects are in order, no internal contradictions,

chronology is correct) with no spelling, punctuation or grammar errors (48)

TO HELP YOU JUDGE THE 4TH CRITERION:

Report Structure & Formatting (49-53)(NB: Table of Contents & Executive Summary not required for assessment 3)

Check that the sample reports have:

Logical sections and subheadings Sections do contain what their subheadings would suggest Are within the 10% + /- range of the word limit Adequate margins Line-spacing of at least 1.5 12 point font (preferably Times New Roman)

Referencing (26-38)

Check the referencing of sources:

Does it conform to APA style, using correct punctuation and format? Do all in-text references have a corresponding entry in the reference

list? Are all reference list entries cited in the text?

13

Assess the Assignment 3 example reports using the rubric criteria:

Notes on Sample 1 Notes on Sample 2

Selection of relevant academic theories, models & frameworks from course literature to identify key issues of personal decision making situation

Application of relevant academic theories, models and frameworks to evaluate why the issues of the personal decision making situation arose

14

Notes on Sample 1 Notes on Sample 2

Personal reflection, informed by theory, on how the issue could have been addressed differently

Clear language, overall structure and correct referencing

Click on Return when you are finished

Click here to return to the start of the document.

15