We will write a custom Essay on Decision-Making Strategies and Techniques specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Nowadays, one cannot underestimate the decision-making processes for organizational functioning and financial prosperity. It remains apparent that making a decision is associated with a plethora of challenges and biases related to heuristics and subjectivity in reasoning (Bazerman & Moore, 2012). In this case, using a prescriptive method of decision-making can minimize risks and apply only the best practices for effective analysis (Bazerman & Moore, 2012). It could be said that the scholars developed an extended variety of decision-making strategies to increase the effectiveness and avoid misunderstandings.
Consequently, in the context of this paper, it is critical to discuss decision-making strategies and apply them to practice with the assistance of the workplace examples. Furthermore, comparing the potential outcomes and assessing the effectiveness of each approach is vital. Lastly, discussing in detail the application of these strategies in the organizational context will help gather the insights of the selected decision-making tools.
Two Decision-Making Techniques
As it was mentioned earlier, there is an extended variety of strategies and tactics, which assist in avoiding judgementalism and bias in decision-making. One of the techniques can be related to considering a viewpoint of the outsider or a third party, which can provide an expert opinion about the situation. In this case, it could be used in the context of the organization when selecting a suitable strategy for expansion. In this case, it remains evident that the selected expert has a profound knowledge of the topic and may offer additional solutions to the presented problem (Kirkiboen, 2014).
Having extended years of working experience in the field of outsourcing and strategic growth will contribute to decreasing the number of typical mistakes associated with this strategy. Based on the factors provided above, it could be said that applying this technique will help avoid overestimating the positive outcomes of the particular decision, as it will offer a systematic framework for making a relevant decision (Kirkiboen, 2014). Nonetheless, relying on this technique solely will increase the possibility of personal bias and the level of subjectivism in decision-making.
Nevertheless, another tactic can be applied as an alternative to the expert’s opinion. In this case, one can focus on decreasing the bias of decision-making while utilizing different approaches to minimize the associated threats. It could be theorized that cognitive biasing is one of the most common challenges during the decision-making process, and it hurts the personal heuristics and critical thinking strategies (Croskerry, Singhal, & Mamede, 2013).
In this case, making a decision in a group concerning the effectiveness of outsourcing and other expansion strategies could be regarded as one of the approaches to reduce the levels of cognitive bias and enhance the overall flow of information. Setting a group discussion with individuals from different levels of subordination will help review the problem from dissimilar angles and avoid judgementalism.
This advantage takes place since the members of the group tend to present their opinions in a clear way while considering the viewpoints of other participants of the discussion (Pollock, Hamann, & Wilson, 2011). In addition to the enhanced decision-making tactics, the employees, who take part in the negotiation process, tend to acquire additional knowledge about the selected topic (Pollock et al., 2011). Overall, using this strategy can be viewed as beneficial in the context of this workplace-based situation, as it will help develop a list of alternatives to find a resolution to the issue.
Comparison of Potential Results
Despite the clarity of the working mechanism and strategies reflected above, it is critical to compare the potential outcomes to understand their effectiveness and applicability in the context of the workplace-based case. In this case, it is vital to access various challenges that will arise during the decision-making process, as they may question the overall efficiency of the critical thinking process and analysis of the situation. In the first place, it is essential to understand the potential outcomes of using the expert opinion technique. As it was mentioned earlier, the selected specialist has a profound knowledge about the chosen topic and can assist in implementing the right tactic for outsourcing (Kirkiboen, 2014; Morgan, 2014).
In this case, the final decision will be supported by rational facts and practical experience while helping the organization to avoid mistakes in the future. Nonetheless, despite a positive contribution of the expert to the decision-making process, the primary challenge is choosing the right specialist for the advisory services (Morgan, 2014). Alternatively, cognitive bias may take place since the expert might have well-developed viewpoints based on the particular situation.
In turn, it is critical to assess the results of the group discussion, as this method uses an entirely different tactic. It remains apparent that creating a list of alternatives for outsourcing will be one of the critical techniques, and it will have a beneficial impact on understanding whether the strategy is aligned with the organizational objectives (Bazerman & Moore, 2012). Nonetheless, one of the primary drawbacks of this technique is groupthink. The presence of conformity and desire to diminish the conflicts before their occurrence eliminates the number of alternatives and question the reliability of the final decisions (Lunenberg, 2010). Consequently, the occurrence of this social phenomenon might have an adverse impact on the desired outcomes and encourage the development of generalization.
Overall, the primary difference between these results is the basis for decision-making. In the context of the expert opinion, the outcomes are based on the viewpoint of an individual, who has a clear understanding of the selected area of operations. Consequently, the final decision is represented in the structured form while offering a well-defined plan of action. On the contrary, the results of the group discussion are based on the opinions of several individuals while providing a plethora of alternatives.
The Most Effective Strategy
The analysis and evaluation of the strategies mentioned above help understand the effectiveness of the selected techniques and determine which one has to be prioritized for future decision-making. In the context of the presented case, it could be said that using group discussion has to be prioritized to determine the efficiency of outsourcing and depict the potential alternative expansion strategies. Due to the lack of extended experience in the sphere of outsourcing, this tactic could be used as the most effective one. One of the reasons is the fact that assists in discovering a problem from dissimilar angles while highlighting the significance of innovation (Pollock et al., 2011).
At the same time, involving different levels of subordination discovers the issue from dissimilar angles while developing a list of alternatives. In this case, taking advantage of this approach will ensure the aligning of the selected companies for outsourcing with the firm’s goals and objectives. Nonetheless, despite the beneficial nature of group discussion as one of the techniques to avoid bias, it has to be applied in combination with the expert opinion. Including a specialist from the industry or any third party in the negotiation process will help acquire an external opinion about the effectiveness of outsourcing.
Using These Tools in Organizational Context
To assess the working mechanism and understand its working principles from the inside, one has to discuss potential situations at the workplace to understand the effectiveness of these strategies. As for my professional experience, I have utilized these strategies at my organization. In the first place, I had to consult an expert in the management to understand the key principles of managerial practice and apply them in the future.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
The primary issue that I had to face was a conflict with my colleague. In this case, consulting a manager to acquire additional knowledge about conflict resolution and prevention strategies by means of assertive communication was vital. Simultaneously, using expert opinion helped to see the problem from a different perspective and decrease a level of bias.
Another situation, which required the participation of the third party, was discussing the need to change the marketing campaign. Being a participant in this discussion helped me express my opinion about the topic and expand my horizons concerning the theme of debate. In this case, the leader of the negotiation was able to avoid the negative consequences of groupthink. The overall process had a sufficient flow, and listing the alternatives helped see a plethora of available choices to enhance the existence marketing campaign. Overall, both of these strategies were actively implemented in practice, and it assisted in improving the existent approaches while motivating the employees to participate in the decision-making process and feel like an important contributor to the firm’s success and profitability.
Bazerman, M., & Moore, D. (2012). Judgement in managerial decision-making. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., & Mamede, S. (2013). Cognitive debiasing 1: Origins of bias and theory of debiasing. British Medical Journal: Quality and Safety, 22(2), 1-25.
Kirkiboen, G. (2014). Decision-behavior – Improving expert judgment. Web.
Lunenberg, F. (2010). Group decision-making: The potential for group think. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 13(1), 1-6.
Morgan, G. (2014). Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. PNAS, 111(20), 7176-7184.
Pollock, P., Hamann, K., & Wilson, B. (2011). Learning through discussions: Comparing the benefits of small-group and large-class settings. Journal of Political Science Education, 7(1), 48-64.