In the business world organizational leaders’ function and apply theoretical principles in a hands on approach to shape the structure, operation and systemic sustainability of business entities. The paradigms applied by these administrators are based upon a myriad of conditions that intuitively create an environment in which it is appropriate to apply a particular framework more so than another that may be designed for another set of conditions.
The logic in determining the frame from which organizations should operate requires managers to conceptually examine the purpose, function, benefit, cost and alternatives in the field to establish confidence through deductive reasoning. To support leaders in systematically constructing frameworks for evaluating approaches to decision making, models have been designed to guide leaders through the thought process. Administrative style must also be accounted for as much so as the environmental conditions that shape what paradigm is most appropriate in ensuring sustainable outcomes.
From the behavioral science perspective, the administrative model can impact how administrators make decisions by describing the context in which decisions are made. By developing a contextual picture isolating the factors that drive decision making, managers can account for the various threats to logical validity while also assessing the risk associated with various approaches. In the behavioral model, administrators recognize that they are constantly placed into business conditions reflective of social phenomenon’s where they are charged to make swift, timely, effective and responsive decisions based upon imperfect information.
127 our experts are availableright now
Through this stage there is a clear acceptance of the bounded rationality in systemic structures which drive managers to satisfice and respond in a manner to address issues by doing enough to solve an issue without going beyond the necessary standard for addressing the objective at hand. The risk with management systems of centralized bounded rationality often results in limited benefit to the organization at large. Google emphasized behavioral based decision making as they examine the development and introduction of new knowledge management applications and products that appeal the human needs of their consumers ((Hardy et. Al., 2005).
This framework brings rise to themes of social accountability where administrators are driven to consider a paradigm more aligned with positivist approaches of rational thinking. The rational models for decision making prompts a need to disaggregate the steps involved in decision making to clearly define the current conditions, examine various alternatives to respond priority needs. Through a structured approach of evaluating various interventions, an alternative must be selected a clearly beneficial standard based upon the organizational values, mission and identity at large. Google applied rational modes of thinking as they examine the application of data analytics in driving their decision making process (Schoeneman, 2006).
In both paradigms, rational decision-making models and behavioral decision-making models there are opportunities for supervisors to focus on programmed vs non-programmed decision making. Programmed decisions are frequent structured and recur in a programmed function as it relates to standard operating procedures and frequent organizational practices. In contrast non-programmed decisions are more organic in form and occur without programmatic decision making and with significantly lessened frequency. According to Dishman, Google Founders Lary Page and Sergey Brin articulated the significance of engaging in the decision-making process from a position of active leadership that is transformation and participative in style (2016).
Essentially these leaders want to be actively involved in the decision-making process and use their influence as leaders to make decisions that were timely more-so than unilateral. Google has exerted many programmed decisions with respect to the importance of timeliness to take advantage of conditions in their environment to strategically position the company (Dishman, 2016). A mixture of non-programmed decisions allows for the CEO to use their spirit in conjunction with their instincts. The programmed decision-making process prevents unilateral decision making and paying recognition to the wheels of the process itself. Strategic managers should be engaged in both approaches to decision making and know when to focus on each style.
