Five Major Characteristics of Group Decision-Making Term Paper

Excerpt from Term Paper :

Group Decision-Making

Decision making in institutes have been depicted as a progression of conduct with the full amount of level-headedness at individual excessive, as well as absolute illogicality at the other excessive. The depiction entails that no more than illogical decision making brings about individual morals priority in excess of economic principles. There must be a way of finding some focal point amid these ends, as it is obvious that any of this set of values can be overlooked. Many a times, managers have been brazen out with the responsibility coming up with stern, objectionable, as well as obnoxious slashes of workers along with services in a speedy approach, for the reason that, in a way, they botched to pay attention to the earlier decisions as per economic values. In the same way, institutions have also been pushed to decision retracting as well as acting in a more confusing way more so in a messy circumstances, for the reason that, they too ignored to pay attention to human values in coming to previous decisions. Approach to enhanced decision making is evidently necessary to numerous institutions as they mull over the prospect demands. As Lenz and Engledow, (1986) puts it that application of a particular approaches to decision making in a way goes along with some leadership style, an individual's traits as well as institutions rations .

This makes decision making a fundamental element of excellent business hence bringing the question of how an excellent decision can be reached at. The answer therefore lies on proper information along with the knowledge in deducing that information. Consulting with experts with intention of seeking their views also assists in a way. Aids towards decision making is also vital, an assortment of methods which lend a hand to easy understanding of information as well as enhanced analysis to insert arithmetical along with purpose accuracy to the process if need be to lessen the quantity of prejudice. Training of managers on excellent decision making is also essential. Support from colleagues both superior and juniors is also instrumental to this process as many like critiquing and not supporting in short we accord conducive environment. Environment of disparagement along with trepidation asphyxiate thrill-seeking as well as originality; managers response many a times diminishes business effectiveness in response to market change in that they tend to play it safe to lessen the threat of disparagement. This brings out the picture that managers tend to spend a lot of time passing blame from one party to the other instead of embarking on their core duty of business running.

Decision-making more and more takes place at every level of an organization. The grand strategic decision on company's future expansion may come from the Board of Directors while a tactical one let's say about departmental efficient contribution to the organization as well as overall objective of the business may come from the managers. And what is expected from employees is nothing other than a decision surrounding the conduct of their own task among customers' response as well as improvements on business practice. This brings us to the two moves toward a decision making as seen by one Huber, (1980). To start with we look at the improvement as well as appliance of normative decision policy founded on prescribed sense resulting from financial side.

Figure 1. The Decision making Process

The representation on the figure 1 above is more of a normative replica and this is because of the manner in which it demonstrates the protocol as well as procedures that effective decision is to be made or reached at. A very positive replica has been used in business studies with a purpose of demonstrating how decisions are reached at in businesses with minimal critics on how effective they are.

Still touching on the normative model von Neumann and Morgenstern (1947) comes up with the games and economic theory conduct which brings about numerous schemes that have emerged in the decision making process. A clear distinction is always brought to board that is among the less risky options as well as the most risky ones.

The next one indeed goes along with the descriptive accounts of people's body language towards decision as well as judgment making not omitting the choice as seen in the case of where a company was to increase the supply of its products. Processes like these bring about certain outcomes like Multi-Attribute Utility (MAU), Gardiner and Edwards (1975) sees this type of decision as being influenced by certain outcomes. They move on further to suggest that MAU do in a way involves obtaining a utility value for every decision alternative and move further to settle on the one with greater value.

The effectiveness for such is derivative on or after a slanted total of detached fraction utilities of a variety of attributes and these has been seen being implemented in a wide range of sections such as personnel selection etc. And it has turned out to be very successfully. Now when it comes to linear models, we find that they are founded on manifold weakening scrutiny. And they have since been used in bringing about judgment description as well as certainty.

A most important apprehension revolves around weights allocated to the prompt principles, and as researchers have tried proving on how the performance of these weights whether one and the same or unsystematic in many settings performs as most favorable weights. As Goldberg, (1970) puts it, the heftiness of this model has given it mileage as far as many application tasks are concerned.

Where there is certainty uncertainty has to be evident hence bringing the uncertain outcomes which comes with the decision tree analysis. Huber, (1980) then describes it has the series as well as perilous decision state of affairs brought about by graphical model. This move therefore engrosses putting down an option alternatives, tentative proceedings as well as result utilities as a chain of kindling and this is how the name decision tree came about. A predictable worth for every alternative is in a way worked out as the standard upshot value in excess of the entire probable proceedings. The most favorable option therefore remains the alternative with the then superior probable worth. This system has gone down well more so in guiding perilous decision processes like ways of market approach (marketing strategy) among others.

The favored process is to carry out decision scrutiny in as a sequence of progressively more complicated connections in the company of the decision makers. In every session the analyst pays attention as well as summarizing every word that comes out of decision makers' mouth. In each step, the hitch is therefore prearranged as the model of analysis is being put in place. With this the decision makers gets attached with the end product of the process. In a way or the other a decision can either be made in a group as well as by an individual. If it's by a group then a forum that brings all the parties together is essential hence decision conference comes to place, this is purposely to engage the parties in every step of the procedure. The conference begins with a retreat which might take a whole day at some point in which the parties be of the same opinion on the theoretical formation of the crisis. Thereby the consensus on purpose, feasible action, suspicions, conclusion, standards, and possibilities among others which are mostly associated with the second day of the conference are brought on board. This excises pushes the participants to critically think pertaining to the concerns as well as the decisions they are enthusiastic to formulate hence structuring the problem. From this conference materializes enhanced indulgent among the team.

Minus considering the number in which the analysis is done for, a number of suggestions citing distinct steps in decision analysis has emerged and Soto, (2002), Philips, et al. (2004) and Weinstein et al., (2003) sees them to be; undoubtedly affirmed aim and hypothesis of the model, stipulation of the raison d'etre of the model, explanation of the blueprint as well as the model formation, illuminating the logical point prospect selected, specifying the standpoint selected as well as specified decision makers, description of the substitutes under assessment, stating wholly the data sources used in the model, carrying out compassion scrutiny as well as discussing the outcome and citing the wrapping up of the study among others.

Explore the Problem & the Role of the Model

This is the process of coming to terms with why the decision maker intends to get to the bottom of a problem. The analyst is to be at home with what the problem resolution would bring forth. This awareness is vital for the reason that it facilitates recognition of innovative options for exploit as well as laid down criteria for assessing the decision. The need to clarify the purpose of the modeling effort by the analyst is crucial for this will maintain footpath of thoughts, to have…

Cite This Term Paper:

"Five Major Characteristics Of Group Decision-Making" (2011, April 20) Retrieved August 19, 2017, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/five-major-characteristics-of-group-decision-making-119700

"Five Major Characteristics Of Group Decision-Making" 20 April 2011. Web.19 August. 2017. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/five-major-characteristics-of-group-decision-making-119700>

"Five Major Characteristics Of Group Decision-Making", 20 April 2011, Accessed.19 August. 2017,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/five-major-characteristics-of-group-decision-making-119700