Task 3 - Decision Making Issues

A lot of week four’s lecture resonated with me when reflecting on the personal decision making styles and especially the bias that can affect the way we approach decision making.  I could think of specific examples where staff have framed the information they have given me to increase the chance that I will make the decision they are hoping for.  For example, recently before we were to discuss moving a member of staff to another team to assist another manager, the present staff member’s manger told me about the challenging personal issues the worker had that would have made the move difficult.  The manager also highlighted their loyal and consistent service.  It was obvious the manager did not want to lose the worker and the way the information was framed made me think about a number of other staff we could move to leave the staff member in their current position.  I slept on the decision over night and with a bit more reflection, felt it was still more efficient and productive to move the staff member. 

I was also able to recognise times when I use mental models to create normality.  I can see that I use this tool in times when I have to make quick, programmed decisions as they help me make sense of things based on past experiences and assumptions.  Unfortunately I have made some bad decisions based on ‘gut feeling’ and intuition that I have tried to post rationalise with limited success.  

Recently I had to make a decision at work regarding reducing the number of pool vehicles available to three different programs across our drug and alcohol service.  I knew that although the three cars were not being fully utilised, a reduction of a whole vehicle could potentially affect all three program’s ability to provide outreach to clients. 

Although I was to make the ultimate decision, I did not feel comfortable making a decision without consultation with the teams who my decision would affect. Before the meeting I was provided with data that suggested all services would have to reduce outreach work by up to 30%.  I quickly realised this information was anchoring my decision-making process and I decided to look into the how the statistics were formulated.  One of the workers had simply assumed they would only have access to a car 70% of the time and then ascribed his programs findings to the other two.  Although I knew any decision to reduce resources would not be popular, I was also being primed by my Manager, who clearly wanted to reduce expenditure.  

I held a meeting with all the teams were I started by informing everyone that I needed to reduce expenditure, but wanted to listen to their ideas about how we could do this.  I gave them two days to thinks about strategies and then we met again, where teams presented ideas.  What resulted was strategies were communication processes were improved and teams planned their outreach in consultation with each other. 

We were able to reduce the car pool by one car, with an understanding that they could utilise my company car within working hours if required.  The teams have also generated cost saving ideas regarding stationary, utilising casual staff and sharing resources between each other.  These ideas were implemented and shared with other State Offices as an example of consultative/ collaborative decision-making.

As I missed attending the lecture last week, I would like to address the group discussion questions myself.  “Group Think” distortions disturb me the most due to being a worker who really enjoys working collaboratively.  As a senior manager, I am also aware that my presence in groups can intimidate other workers and stop them from fully engaging in the process.  My opinions can also influence the group and sway discussions, as some workers may not want to be seen to disagree with me.

To try and overcome these issues, I will reframe from giving my opinions in the initial group meetings unless asked and then sometimes I will still not provide my opinion in the forum and usually wait for the next meeting.  I make sure that everyone can see that I am actively listening and will encourage quieter team members.  I will also respectively manage group members who may be overtaking group discussions.  I often make myself the scribe, so I can explore people’s ideas as I record them and engage them to explain their ideas fully.  I also explain all these strategies openly at the start of the process so staff know I am not taking part for a reason and am really encouraging them to provide me with their ideas. 

And just quickly, two strategies I have used to minimise groupthink are:

• ·      Bringing in an outsider to play devils advocate and question assumptions.
• ·      Ask the group to come up with two different solutions that they have to present and argue for equally.

Have a great week!

Shaun

Task 2 with pics you can see

When considering the task for this week’s blog, I have referred to chapter six ‘Systems Analysis’ of Teale et.al 2003 book Management Decision Making: Towards an Integrative Approach and Chapter four ‘Objective Finding, Fact Finding and Problem finding/ Definition” of Tony Proctor’s 2005 book, Creative Problem Solving for Managers.

As a manager who is responsible for staff on 15 sites around WA, I have a constant problem with receiving consistent, dependable and timely information from the site managers. I require this information to compile weekly manager reports and track performance and expenditure.  The information includes client statistics, budget updates, variances and some quantitative information about staff performance and general presenting themes of clients.

I started this task by doing an Input- Transformation- Output model for the issue.  This broke the process into four sections that I could explore (Figure 1).  

I then did a quick mind map (Figure 2) to try and come up with possible issues/ blockages that are stopping me from receiving the information I require in a timely manner.  

This highlighted a couple of areas that could contribute to the issue, namely:

• ·      Site managers my not have systems that make the extraction of data quick and accurate.
• ·      They may not know how to use the central database efficiently for the task.
• ·      They may have too many things to do.
• ·      They may not be clear of the expectations of the task.
• ·      They might not have experience or knowledge of data collection.
• ·      They may not perceive it as important.
• ·      The instructions may not have been clear.
• ·      There is no common reporting framework.

Information and knowledge inputs/ outputs were annotated on the mind map to explain the flow of information and knowledge and highlight issues.  This process generated some red flags for further exploration, such as:

• ·      The clarity of my instructions and expectations. (Knowledge)
• ·      Explanation of why the information is required and its importance. (Knowledge)
• ·      The integrity of the data input. (Data)
• ·      The limited knowledge of site managers with qualifications in social services to extract and present data from the organisation’s database. (Information)

From completing and reflecting on this process, I would blame my problem mostly on me. Its pretty clear I need to generate a reporting framework for all the managers I am responsible for and support them to be able to use the tool efficiently. I will also invest some time in explaining why the information is required in the next site managers meeting.  I will plan some training for the managers to develop their skills and knowledge at efficiently inputting the data, drawing out the data and presenting the information in line with our reporting requirements. This should result in me receiving information that is dependable, consistent and within deadline. 

Task 1 - Decision Making Typologies

In considering Simon’s (1960) normative model of decision-making, I have done some extra research by reading chapter one of the Teale et al. (2003) text Management decision making: towards an integrative approach.  The chapter entitled “Management decision-making in context” provided a concise review of Simon’s life and contribution to the professional discipline of decision-making in “business administration”.  I also reviewed Pomerol and Adam’s (2004) academic article “Practical decision making: from the legacy of Herbert Simon to decision support systems”.  This was an easy to read piece that focused on Simon’s work and how it has been developed to form the foundations of Decision Support Systems (DSS) that are utilised by many managers today. 

Key themes of Simon’s work focus on the way decisions are rationally made by identifying all the possible alternatives; determining all the possible consequences of the these alternatives; and evaluating all the possible consequences.  His other key argument was that if the individual is making a decision in an organisation, the structure and the ‘influence’ of the organisation plays a key role.  This places Simon’s research and work in the framework of ‘social psychology’, a well-established field of study today, but one that has its foundations in the work of Herbert Simon. 

In 1960, Simon presented his model of decision making which he is most famous.  It is made up of four stages: Intelligence; Design; Choice and Implementation (Review).

In considering a decision I have made within this framework, I am drawn to a situation in my last job.  I was the WA Operations Manager of a residential service for young people with very high needs.  I was asked by the Board to research and decide if the organisation should open operations in South Australia, with the understanding that I would manage the service if it were to open. 

I started by collecting as much information as possible about the out-of-home care sector in Adelaide, this included the amount of young people in care; relevant legislation and Acts, competitors presently in the market place, the possible pool of potential employees, rental costs, and government funding structures that would be able to utilise our services.  In looking for potential issues, I recognised a number of opportunities in opening services in Adelaide, namely the limited amount of services presently providing high needs care and the high number of young people waiting for suitable placements.  Potential issues (problems) was that we would be the high cost of our service and the difficulties we could potentially have in recruiting suitably qualified, experienced and resilient local staff. 

I conceived a number of possible service development models, which included organically building the service one house at a time, transporting current staff from either WA or Queensland to open and establish the business; or developing a partnership with an established service in Adelaide and training some of their current staff to work specially with more challenging clients.  I also thought about moving to Adelaide myself to manage the start up and work towards sustainability of the business and the employment of a SA State Manager.  The Board and the CEO provided me with defining criteria, namely a deadline for the proposal of two months, projected start up of the new business within a year and a projected operational budget for the first year of opening. 

Using these criteria, I evaluated the alternatives and decided to present the option of growing the new Adelaide operation one house at a time, allowing us to employ and train staff as we needed them, more tightly control the budget and minimise risk.  The Board supported this model and I produced a business plan that focused on building relationships with key stakeholders and employing a local coordinator to obtain suitable resources including the first property in Adelaide.  I left the organisation shortly after the SA coordinator was employed.

On reflection, this model could break down in the first stage, as you can only choose from alternatives you know about.  I was acting on a combination of tacit and explicit knowledge, which led to bounded rationality as I had limited time, knowledge, data and the authority to make the final decision.  I was also bias due to that not wishing to move to Adelaide, which seriously affected my ability to judge all the alternatives the same.

I believe the model is useful because it provides a framework for capturing possibilities and considering consequences.  I personally like ordered ways of approaching decisions and Simon’s provides a rational model that allows you to take into account a number of alternatives for reaching similar goals.  He also makes us question our limitations and bias that underpin our decisions. 

The main issue however is how we are usually time poor, which in turn undermines the amount of information that can be collected and considered as well as how much time can be spent in utilising this model.  I suppose this model is only as good as the information and knowledge that is fed into it, which again is a serious constraint for most of today’s time poor managers.