SBenegaL

Blog

  • Z Problem Solving Mode 2

    In the last byte, we had a look at the diagrammatic representation of the Z-model of decision making. In today’s byte, we look at in detail.

    According to the Z model of decision making, a good problem solving model should have the following 4 steps:

    1. Examine the facts and details
    2. Generate Alternatives
    3. Analyze the alternatives objectively
    4. Weight the impact
    In the first stage when we are examining the facts and details it is the sensing style that takes predominance and helps gather information about the problem. In the second stage, it is the intuiting style that could play a major role in developing the possibilities. In the third stage, it is the thinking that would drive the decision maker determine the effect of each alternative. The final stage uses the feeling dimension predominantly to determine how the people involved will be affected.

  • Z Problem Solving Mode

    In the last byte we looked at the intuition based decision making process. In today’s byte we shall begin our discussion on the Z Problem Solving Model.

    We could summarize the Z-problem solving model in the following diagram. We shall discuss about this in the next byte.




    Ref: The diagram has been adapted from the reference book on organizational behavior that we follow.

  • Jung’s Cognitive Style 3

    In the last byte we looked at the sensing based cognitive styles of decision making. In today’s byte we look at the intuition based cognitive styles of decision making.

    Intuiting/thinking:

    These individuals focus on the alternative possibilities in a situation and then evaluate each of them in an objective and impersonal way. These individuals love to initiate ideas and they like to focus on the long term, they are also risk taking and innovative. These make them suited for new business development according to research. They however have the weakness of ignoring arguments based on facts and the feelings of others.

    Intuiting/Feeling:

    These individuals seek out alternate possibilities and also consider how these possibilities influence the people involved. This nature allows them to make participative decisions and also develop their employees with commitment. They however could make decisions based on personal preferences rather than a clear objective way. They are also found to be too responsive to the needs of others.

  • Jung’s Cognitive Style 2

    In the last byte, we began our discussion on the Jungian Cognitive Theory. In today’s byte, we look at two of these cognitive styles and try to understand about them:

    Sensing/ Thinking:

    These individuals relay on facts – they generally conduct an impersonal analysis of the situation and then go on to making an analytical and objective decision. The ability to get a clear, simple solution is of immense value in an organization. These people are extremely detail oriented and very rarely make any factual errors – their weakness however is that they may alienate others due to relatively less involvement of the interpersonal aspects in decision making.

    Sensing/Feeling:

    These individuals relay on information gathering but they judge on how the decision would affect other people involved. While they put a lot of weight on interpersonal relationships they do not lose sight of the practical approach to information gathering and problem solving. The strength of these individuals is in their ability to take care of the interpersonal problems while taking in calculated risks too. These people however might have difficulty accepting a new idea that breaks the rule in an organization.

  • Jung’s Cognitive Style

    In the last byte, we looked at the affect of escalation of commitment. In today’s byte, we begin our discussion on Jung’s Cognitive Style.

    Cognitive Style refers to an individual’s preference for gathering information and evaluating alternatives.

    Jungian theory gives us a frame to understand the way individuals understand and appreciate the differences in decision making. Carl Junk identifies two broad thought processes – one is the information gathering and the other is making judgements. An individual could gather information through two broad ways – sensing and intuition, he/she could also make judgments using two broad ways – thinking and feeling. This could lead us to see four cognitive styles:

    1. Sensing/Thinking
    2. Sensing/Feeling
    3. Intuiting/Thinking
    4. Intuiting/Feeling.
    Each of these cognitive styles has a definitive influence on managerial decision making – we shall explore this over the next few bytes.

  • Escalation of Commitment

    In the last byte, we looked at the concept of risk aversion. In today’s byte we look at the concept of escalation of commitment.

    One often finds situations where good money is thrown behind a failing cause – this is an indication of escalation of commitment. Escalation of commitment refers to the tendency of people/organizations to continue to support a failing course of action. Escalation of commitment need not just take the form of investing more in a firm or a cause; it could also be in the form of bearing deeper losses.

    If one were to wonder why this tendency occurs, it becomes clear that one of the reasons could be that humans dislike inconsistency and that when there is inconsistency among their attitudes or inconsistency between their attitudes and behavior, they strive to reduce the dissonance. The other reason could be optimism and control which over estimates the likelihood that positive things will happen to them.

    One way to reduce the possibility of escalation of commitment in organization is to split the responsibility for decision of projects – one individual could be initial decision and another could make the subsequent decisions. Also it is possible to reduce such an act by making it a group decision scenario instead of an individual decision.

  • Risk Aversion

    In the last byte, we looked at the various models of decision making. In today’s byte, we look at the concept of risk aversion.

    Risk Aversion refers to the tendency to choose options that possess fewer risks and less uncertainty.

    Individuals differ in their capacity to handle uncertainty and take risks. Some choose fewer risks and prefer familiarity and certainty while others prefer to take greater risks – they accept the loss in decisions and are willing to take more uncertainty.

    Risk taking could be an extremely individualistic behavior, but it is also influences by organizational factors – If an upper-level manager could be discouraging of risk taking then the creativity and innovation could suffer. What is important tough, is that the company/organization should have a consistent attitude towards risk and not fluctuate.

    Losses are bound to occur when one takes risk – however the key is not to throw the good money after the bad due to commitment – we shall discuss this in the next byte.

  • Decision Models

    In the last byte, we looked at the various steps involved in decision making. In today’s byte, we begin our discussion on various decision models.

    Mangers make decisions that involve significant risk and in the face of uncertainty, they don’t have complete information most of the time about the problem and are forced to decide and act. Decision making could thus be extremely stressful since they would be ultimately responsible for the outcomes of their decisions. Added to this is the kind of decisions that managers are required to do – they could range from simple ones to painful ones like exiting businesses, firing people and admitting wrong!

    If one is to measure the success of a manager it would be through the number of effective decisions that one makes. An effective decision is one which is timely and meets the desired objective and is acceptable to those individuals affected by that decision.

    There are multiple ways in which one could model the decision making process, here is a list of those that we would be dealing with over the next few bytes:

    1. Rational Model
    2. Bounded Rationality Model
    3. Garbage Can Model

  • Decision Making Process 3

    In the last byte, we began our discussion about the first two stages of the decision making process. In today’s byte, we look at the remaining stages.

    The third step indicated in the process of the decision making process is that of gathering information that would help the manager decide about why the problem occurred.

    The fourth step is that of listing and evaluating the alternative courses of action – the manager in real life might not list it on a paper or board but would keep tab of the alternative courses and the various factors that affect the outcome there in. It also helps if some amount of brain storming could pitch in here (this is driven by the management style of the manager really!)

    The next step is to select the alternative that best achieves the objective that the manager set out to achieve in the first place. If the problem was appropriately diagnosed and the alternatives properly identified, it would be an easy step at this stage.

    The last and most crucial phase is that of implementing the decision. If there is no implementation of any decision made, it would be of no use – the situation should also be monitored to see if the decision made really meets the objective – the follow up is only complete if the monitoring and corrective action are taken up based on the feedback received.

  • Decision Making Process 2

    In the last byte, we began our discussion on decision making process and classified the decisions into 2 types. In today’s byte, we look at the various steps involved in a decision making process.

    The decision making process could be summarized in the following diagram (adapted from the reference book):

    The first step in a decision making process is that of recognizing the problem. The other way of looking at this is it is the point when the manager realizes that he/she has to make the decision in the context. It is important to identify the real problem else it is very possible that any action taken would not fix the real underlying reason – it would only be treating the symptoms and that is more life firefighting than the root cause fixation.

    The second step in the process is for the manager to indentify the objective with which the decision is to be made – that is, the manager should determine what needs to be accomplished through the decision.

    We shall continue the discussion on the other steps in the next byte.