Capable Managers Make Bad Decisions? What Individual

¶ … capable managers make bad decisions? What individual managers improve decision-Making skills? Part 2: Using knowledge Management, write a page, formal written answer question. There is a wide array of reasons that competent managers sometimes make the wrong decisions. First of all, it is useful to try and define these terms. A competent manager refers to a manager who has knowledge, both theoretical and practical. Usually, he has also shown his competency in practice in the past, in other situations.

A wrong/bad decision is a decision that affects the company or the company's objectives, ranging from maximizing its profits to its share price. One of the reasons why a competent manager makes a bad decision is the situation itself. The situation may prove so difficult and so complex that all the knowledge and competency that the manager has is not useful in solving it. Faced with this situation, the manager usually makes a decision, from the ones that he thinks he has available.

Since his knowledge is limited, as compared to the overall complexity of the situation, the decision is a bad one. Another case is that the manager does not have all the elements to help him make the right decision. His decision appears incomplete, in a similar manner as to the one previously presented.

In both cases, the appropriate way of action is for him to improve his knowledge by (1) ensuring that he includes more subordinates in the loop when gathering information; (2) holding more meetings and getting more information from different layers of the organization etc. All these are done with the purpose of having the manager be more informed and knowledgeable. One final reason why he may make a bad decision is that the decision making process is not always a timely one.

Simply put, the decision may not have been made at the right time. If the decision was late, then it does not reflect the new situation on the ground and is, again, not correct. Part 2 First of all, it is essential for managers to involve subordinates in the control process because subordinates are often more in touch with working level issues within the organization.

From a time management perspective, organization managers need to deal, as a priority, with the decision making process, but also with functions of management such as control. In order to ensure proper control, information and feedback is very important and this can be best provided by subordinates, by people who are in touch, on a day-to-day basis, with the realities of the working process. Second, consulting and involving subordinates also ensures a reasonable objectivity in the control process.

If, for example, the control process reflects the performance of individual workers, ensuring an open channel of communication with them allows the manager to make objective decisions related to their performance, including because he has an open channel for feedback as well. The employee can thus report back, add arguments to the control process etc. In a globalized world and for companies that have an international presence, this becomes particularly useful as a form of feedback and information in the control process.

Ensuring control over long distances needs to be done in a way that is relevant and efficient. Passing along some of this responsibility to the subordinates becomes a necessity, particularly in the context of an increasingly competitive global environment. Part 3 Indira Gandhi's statement is essential in better understanding the nature of leadership today. In the past, as she mentioned, leadership meant muscle. If one looks into history, muscle was used both for the submission of one's own people and for the occasional submission of neighboring people.

The worrying fact is that so much of human history is based on this muscle-led leadership: up to the end of the Second World War, in 1945, leadership is equivalent with muscle. At the end of 1945, however, the world faces a new paradigm: people are exhausted by the numerous wars and losses that the world had seen in the last centuries and, particularly, the last decades.

Once and for all, human beings start accepting the fact that if leadership continues to mean muscle, it will also mean the disappearance of all human beings and the destruction of human race. Subsequently, leadership starts meaning getting along with people. The best example in this sense is the relationship between Germany and France. Throughout much of the 19th century and the 20th century, the two countries were Europe's worst enemies.

After fighting a bitter Second World War, the leaders of the two countries, President Charles de Gaulle and Prime Minister Konrad Adenauer decided that a change of leadership was necessary. Their solution was to start getting along. The subsequent result was that France and Germany started the European Union and are still the recognized engines of this union. In this context, it is also interesting to note that, although Indira Gandhi put forward this statement, India and Pakistan have remained in a state of war since the 1940s.

Moving from international relations and politics to business and economics, it is clear that the same principle can be applied here today. First of all, as.