Executive summary
This reflection focuses on a decision made to send a team to supervise operations of a supply partner on-site as a way to improve performance. The outcome was positive in performance, but it caused tension in the relationship between the partner and the company. The reflection analyses the situation deeper using the attribution theory and the concept of utilitarianism to find out the underlying motivations. In the analysis, it reveals the main reasons for following opting to make the decision and brings out the weaknesses and strengths. It is apparent that there were mistakes made in the approach used. Therefore, part of the recommendation is to have a mechanism for incorporating the view of other stakeholders in decision-making in a way that does not delay the process as a remedy to prevent bias.
Introduction
This essay is going to reflect on a decision made to send a team to work from a supply partner’s location, instead of having the supply partner deliver solutions for my team to approve. A major factor influencing the decision was the past experience. Previous attempts to let the supply partner to provide solutions unsupervised led to low-quality work and delays. In addition, the supply partner was taking too long to communicate any changes made to original designs such that at the time of delivering the product, its original design could have changed significantly to affect other production processes. After opting to send a team to oversee the production process and address all concerns of the supply partner, the business performance improved as the supply partner delivered on time. Updates were also communicated early on original design changes, and this led to better handling of customer expectations. Besides that, the relationship between the company and the supply partner became strictly professional and somehow tense.
Analysis
In analysing the decision taken, two perspectives will suffice to provide a sufficient background for understanding the motivation behind the decision. The first perspective is the attribution theory and the second one is the ethical concept of utilitarianism. According to the attribution theory, an individual possesses an innate desire for understanding the causes of outcomes or behaviours that have meaning in his or her life. In my case, this desire related to the need to understand why there were delays in communicating changes to original designs from the supply partner to the company. The attribution theory is useful in this case because it will help in understanding the causes of positive and negative outcome so that, there will be efforts to encourage positive outcomes and limit the negative ones. The strength of attribution theory arises from the idea of perception. From the meaning of perception, I understand that my behaviour and choice could have been determined by what I felt and thought was a reality, even though, this might not have been the actual reality.
I must have used the halo effect and selective perception as the main shortcuts for judging the relationship and performance of the supply partner’s business. After dealing with the partner on a few occasions, I came up with a general impression about the business and its ability to meet its commitments. The selective perception arose when I considered the company’s interest and relied on the background to influence the circumstances that the company worked with. I did not consider the circumstances that the supply partner was working with. Instead, I only thought of the company’s traditional way of working and its attitudes towards supply partners. For example, in the case of the decisions being analysed here, the prevailing attitude of the company was that supply partners are lazy. The overall opinion of the company was that unless the partners are pushed to meet their delivery obligations they will delay on their commitments.
I can now see that I was applying the attribution theory to a particular situation in an organisation. I was using it to shape my performance expectations. Therefore, I relied on the perceived situation based on the information I already had to make the decision without allowing the perspectives of the supply partner to have an effect on the final say. The use of perception in decision-making has two links. The first link is on decisions and the second one is on problems. Under decisions, a person has to choose between two or more alternatives. Regarding problems, one encounters inconsistencies when comparing the existing state and the preferred status.
In the utilitarianism approach, the decision maker makes a calculated approach to dealing with ethical matters concerning a pending decision. Considerations made depend on the decision maker, the situation, the decision criteria, time, people affected by the decision and thinking of whether the situation is a problem or an opportunity. The intention is to arrive at a decision that delivers greatest balance of goods over harms (Bazerman & Tenbrunel, 2011). My understanding here is that I considered the performance of the company and its stakeholders, including the supply partner when choosing to send a supervisory team to oversee production. Although the decision would cause tension and affect the working environment of workers and managers at the supply partners’ business, I hoped that it would ensure that deadlines are met, and alterations to original designs are minimal. Utilitarianism is a moral reasoning that affects an individual’s decision when faced with ethical dilemmas. In my case, the ethical dilemma was on whether to allow the supply partner to enjoy freedom and use other means to guarantee service delivery, or to violate some of the freedom and ensure that the business collaboration relationship benefits all parties.
Critical discussion
In retrospect, there could be errors that I made in my decisions, such as errors related to attribution. Such mistakes entail undermining the impact of external factors and putting more emphasis on the effect of the internal factors in judging others. In my case, there is a possibility that delays and alterations only happened because of the product features or other factors beyond the supply’s partner control. Nevertheless, I went on to assume that the supply partner was not committing fully to the arrangement. The positive results seen in implementing the decision could be temporary (Brown, 2008). For example, on future orders, the problem of too many alternations on original designs may occur again, and the close supervision may not be enough to prevent it. Such a case would prove my choice wrong.
On the other hand, going with a utilitarian perspective was an effective way of dealing with the situation. I was able to make a quick decision and limit the casualties of the decision. Since it was a straightforward way of choosing how to proceed, it would be easy to implementations even in future situations (Clark, 2011). However, a shortcoming of this approach is that it depends on the perception of fairness that I have and does not consider the same case for the other entities affected by the decision (Chauvin, Clostermann, & Hoc, 2011). This would explain why there were tense relationships between the company and the supply partner after implementing the decision. The supply partner might have interpreted the situation as unfair.
Therefore, the strength of the decision was in its quick execution and use of a utilitarianism perspective that enhances the overall benefit of all parties. This will ensure that in future, it is easy to defend the decision. However, there are weaknesses that arise out of the decision. One of them is the attribution error and the other one is the self-serving bias, where I consider the decision to be the reason for improved performance when in reality, external factors might have played a part (Banaji, Bazerman, & Chugh, 2003).
Recommendations
Based on the reflection above, I should embrace a thorough understanding of the decision-making process and get familiar with the underlying theories so that I become a good judge of situations. Beyond that, I need to follow the conventional stages of decision-making and at the same time pay attention the duration of each stage so that following due process does not become an impediment to effective decision-making. Instead of relying on my perception of situations, I should also consider other people’s perspectives. A better way to implement this will be by having a mechanism for including opinions and suggestions for decision before making them in the company or individual context (Bonabeau, 2009).
Before making decisions, I need to find out who is responsible for making the decision and whether it is an individual or group decision. While deliberating, I must also consider who takes the responsibility for the decision. These deliberations should then affect the way I structure the decision. Overall, I need to think and reason before I act and in some cases, I might benefit more from the outcome when I follow a rational decision-making model. However, before choosing this model, I need to have evaluated it for its suitability in a particular situation. Eventually, I should be able to analyse situations and, most importantly, know about any biases that may be present in the particular situation. The essence of this task is to ensure that I get rid of all biases such as self-serving biases and self-confidence biases (Dayan & Law, 2008).
Rather than just rely on a rational analysis, I should also leave enough room for making intuitive reasoning (Simmons, Nelson, Galak, & Fredrick, 2011). Being aware of my weaknesses will allow me to consider the fact that my decision may not be the appropriate one for some jobs. While I make decisions about my perceptions, I should also consider the perception of stakeholders in the particular decision. Their perspective can affect the overall utility of the decision I make and may facilitate or jeopardise an efficient outcome. Finally, I need to go with the idea of the situations as opportunities. This way, I will avoid the mistake of allocating resources to problem-solving rather than using the same reason to utilise the opportunity presented by the decision-making situation (Fitzgerald, 2013).
The reflection has shown that a weakness of the decision was due to attribution error, and part of remedying that error would be to consider the effect of sunken costs on clouding judgment. Being aware of the sunken cost parameter in a particular decision-making environment will allow me to avoid making erroneous perceptions that can jeopardise the overall effectiveness of my choices. Based on this recommendation, I will be able to increase the quality of my decision as I have addressed my weaknesses and considered the best ways of continuing to improve the aspects that are already strong.
References
Banaji, M. R., Bazerman, M. H., & Chugh, D. (2003, December). How (un) ethical are you? Havard Business Review, 81(12), 53-64.
Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrunel, A. E. (2011, April). Ethical breakdowns: Good people often let bad things happen. Why?. Harvard Business Review, Harvard Business Review, 89(4), 58-65.
Bonabeau, E. (2009, Winter). Decisions 2.0: The power of collective intelligence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(2), 44-53.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking.Harvard Business Review, pp. 85-92. Web.
Chauvin, C., Clostermann, J. P., & Hoc, J.-M. (2011). Situational awareness and the decision-making process in a dynamic situation: avoiding collsion at sea. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 5, 378-400.
Clark, J. W. (2011). Business intelligence and decision making: Understanding B.I. as a theroy-performing decision of decision improvement. Proceedings of JAIS Theory Development Workshop. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems.
Dayan, P., & Law, N. D. (2008). Connections between computational and neurobiological perspectives on decision making. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8(4), 429-453.
Fitzgerald, M. (2013). Managing under uncertainty, a qualitative approach to decision-making (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Pearson.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., Galak, J., & Fredrick, S. (2011). Intuitive biases in choice versus estimation: Implications for the wisdom of crowds. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 1-15.