Reference no: EM13330571

What do you think? please give me the answer in positive way

1.Identification of the real problem in decision making is critical to thinking through the problems in a logical and thorough manner, to come up with the best decision for the situation. Without an in-depth understanding of the different attributes and situations which make up the root cause for the situation or problems, the problems cannot be properly defined, which would lead to inference or trying to use educated guesses to use to resolve problems.

The attribution theory uses internal or external inferred causes to explain why a situation or problem occurred. The internal attribution attributes the success of a decision based on what you have done, where an external attribution focuses on the external events or environment as the reason for the situation or problem. When managers and employees work together, it is important to look past the seemingly internal or external causes that could have affected the decision, and look for the root causes which are the true affects which influenced or caused the situation or problem.
I recently completed a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt course which spent a good amount of time on using data to make good decisions. A good scenario was if person 1 had 15 out of 30 questions correct, were they more accurate than person 2 who got 18 out of 40 questions correct. Using the raw data, the person1 got 50% of the questions correct while the person 2 got 45% of the questions correct, but saying the person 1 was more accurate may not be correct. When taking the data and using statistical methods to determine if the difference between the two answers, the results falls into a range of normal variation and are not statistically significant, so the correct answer would be that person 1 is not more accurate than person 2.
A little heavy on statistics, but I wanted to share the thought that the answer that seems pretty straightforward, may not always be correct. Time and effort must be taken to look past the presumed obvious and dig deeper to determine the best answer using the available data and information from others.
2.Considering the dynamic nature of business today and the fact that no one is smarter than everyone means that groups are and important part of making things happen. The following are four key aspects to group behavior:

1) Norms of behavior: This is how the group assessed contributors that are part of the group. The group will operate under specific rules or understandings and the norms for their mode of operation are what will define a strong cohesive group. Sometimes these norms are explecit and are well known as they may be published for the group to read and understand. Code of ethics are a good example of this.

2) Group cohesion: This is the chemistry in which groups thrive because they have a common purpose that is well known and they abide by achieving that purpose through the successful collaboration of all team members.

3) Social loafing: Loafing occurs when some team members don't hold up their end of the bargain and can't complete the work to the groups level of satisfaction. This can be countered by having very specific sets of standards that each group member must handle in order to achieve complete success.

4) Loss of individuality: This can be a destructive force within a group when individuals lose their self-awareness functions and act out towards the group in a way that minimizes the efforts of what is trying to be accomplished.

Each of the dynamics listed must be understood by the leaders of groups so they can take proactive measures to insure complete group cohesion throughout their projects.
3.There have been many times in which I was part of a work group that had certain behavioral norms that I wasn't accustomed to and had to make a decision as to how to handle those scenarios. I was once part of an organization that had managers that would take off for lunch and never come back to work as they socially loafed and created their own type of camaraderie which wasn't exactly pertaining to work. While I am always good with blowing off a little steam and creating closer relationships with colleagues by understanding their personal lives, I simply couldn't get in the habit of consistently blowing off work to shoot the breeze.

I have found myself as a social loafer early in my career when I felt entitled as I thought that the work I was producing was of higher quality and consistency than my co-workers how would get the same credit for a job done half as well as what I produced. I started to loaf and brought myself down to their standards which put the entire team in a bad position. I learned that I need to give 100% all the time and it also gave me a good history as to what to watch for as a leader as it pertained to those that couldn't meet their own objectives as it could bring down stronger performers on the team.
4.The bounded rationality model focuses on the manager's selection of the first alternative is based on what is considered a "good enough" outcome based on the amount of effort and cost that must be made to come up with a different decision. The garbage can model is more focused on how organizations seem to make decisions based on haphazard or unsystematic decision making processes. Both models show a lack of initiative and understanding of the importance of taking time to research the best decision for the situation based on the overall objective the outcome of the best decision for the organization.

The bounded rationality model assumes that managers use their knowledge and experience in making similar decisions that have worked in the past. The garbage can model uses the assumption that variables used to rationalize the decision come from the formation of a series of random events or information, that fall into a pattern. The fallacy of the garbage can model is that the decisions are based on past performance which is not always a predictor of future events, which throws luck into the equation rather than a systematic approach to making a decision.
I have seen both methods used with good decisions being randomly made, some based on a manager's ability to look back over other decisions and create a rational model or sometimes making a good decision based on luck, which is very difficult to explain the reasoning behind or to duplicate again in the future.
With the fast paced environment and need to sometimes make quick decisions based on limited data, both models are not effective in providing a good decision making process. Quick decisions can be made effectively, but require that others outside of the manager be involved. I see the role of a manager today as less of a decision maker and more of a facilitator that can bring a group of people together, lay out the situation or problem that need to be addressed and take the input of the group to come up with the best solution based on a input from the group and the manager's knowledge and experience.