Introduction
How does it feel when an employer denies an individual a career advancement opportunity at the workplace, only because a computer has randomly selected the qualified individuals? In this era of stiff competition among firms as illustrated by time and eminence, managers have employed the use technology in decision-making.
These accessories aid the process of making organizational decisions. Furthermore, they believe that these electronic accessories help in making quick and accurate decisions. Hence, they manage to withstand stiff competition from other companies.
It is clear that even if managers use these software and computers in making their decisions, they are certain that the decisions will be more rational. It is crucial for managers to accept advice to reduce the use of such accessories when making decisions. Some of the reasons why the decisions made by managers will not be more rational are the fact that, computers and software tools restricts the scope of making decisions, as there are decisions that require the application of an individual’s principles and skills.
Moreover, these technologies easily results in errors when used in making organizational decisions since there are no consultations done during the process. In making decisions that are more rational, human conscience plays an imperative role, unfortunately decisions influenced by technology lack this concept.
Additionally, rational decisions free of individual manipulation are tenable. However, it is easy to manipulate technology-assisted decisions to favor a certain subject. Computer experts who enter the programs used in this processes can easily do this. Rational decisions are real since human instinct facilitates the process.
However, this is not the case when decisions are made with the aid of technology. Rational decisions made without the use of computers seem to convince the subjects more. It is a fact that, managerial decisions aim at achieving company goals. Thus, use of technology might as well fail to meet the company goals. Most importantly, a decision crafted in a rational manner is flexible.
This means that the decisions can be reversed or made to accommodate other concepts if need arises. It is noteworthy that this is not possible when decisions are made using computers and software tools. In as much as computers and software tools allow managers to congregate information and scrutinize them easily, they make their decisions faulty or irrational.
Birrell & Ould (2008) highlight that, in a normal managerial setting, rational decisions made by managers are not limited in scope. This is because most of the decisions do not involve the use of computers and software tools, but rather embrace consultative approaches.
On the contrary, the decisions made with the aid of computers and software tools are limited to certain range of decisions (Birrell & Ould, 2008). For example, consider a situation where a manager in an outside catering food firm like McDonalds has to make a decision on which employee is to deliver food to a client whenever there is shortage in work force.
It is obvious that the chosen employee should be the one who has little or no work at that time. In such a situation, a computer or software tool cannot aid in making such a decision. Thus, the use of these software tools and computers is limited and does not enable a manager reach decisions that are more rational. It is significant to note that most managerial decisions are majorly interactive.
Thus, managers are required to make decisions basing on their interaction with employees. As a result, technology cannot help in coming to such conclusions. For example, a computer cannot assist managers keep their employees at elevated job contentment and motivation. This is a decision made strictly by managers after interaction with the personnel. In the end, the decisions made with the aid of technology portend several limitations (Ranganathan and Sethi, 2002).
The use of computers and software tools to make decisions does not help managers in enhancing rationality because such decisions are prone to errors. Most importantly, rational decisions are characterized by diminished levels of errors. This comes about because such decisions are taken in a collective setting such as meetings.
On the contrary, the decisions facilitated by computers are prone to errors because they base on the data entered into these computers. In most cases, individuals who might create errors during this process enter such data. As a result, the errors affect all the decisions made using computers containing these data. In the end, the computer might help the manager to make a quick decision but the resultant decision will be less rational or faulty (Longman & Mullins, 2005).
For example, if a manager of a research organization like Transparency International bases his decision on research collected from online sources, he might end up making errors. This is from research previously made by the individuals who posted information on such sources. Computers accurately analyze data consequently identifying the management processes that work. Despite this, a manager has to look rationally at the data the computer analyses to ensure it is authentic.
In case, data used is of poor quality and unreliable, the manager has the option of rejecting the results produced by the computer thus seeking alternative measures. This means that ultimately a more rational decision comes about without the use of computers and other software tools. In such a situation, the computer might ease the procedure of decision-making, but will not aid in making a rational decision (Longman & Mullins, 2005).
It is evident that for a manager to make rational decisions, he needs to engage his conscience at elevated levels. This is because human conscience is an important aspect that contributes to rational decisions. Regardless of the usefulness of technology, it is clear that managers lack this essential aspect. In the end, the decisions taken will be less rational.
Some of the essential concepts constituted in human conscience during decision-making include multiculturalism and diversity concerns. In essence, these are concepts a manager should consider when making administration decisions. Decisions made whilst considering these concepts are always taken as balanced. It is noteworthy that the surrounding or environment contributes to the decision-making procedure since it may offer either serenity or conflict.
However, these concepts do not apply when using computers and software tools. Hence, decisions based on different technologies might be less rational (Dennis, Rennecker, and Hansen, 2010). For example, consider an international poverty obliteration organization like ‘Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’ that seeks to amass data in remote part of the African continent. It will require study assistants.
During the staffing process, the managers must put into consideration the concepts of diversity and multiculturalism. This is because the data compilation procedure entails interviewing the community, a fact that makes it important for the interviewer to be of African origin, thus speaks, understands the indigenous language, and embraces the culture of the community.
In such a situation, human conscience will play a major role in the making the decision. In the event that the decision is made using a computer or software tools, it might fail to meet the expectation as pertains to rationality in the decision-making procedure. This is because someone who does not meet the above criteria will be chosen as an interviewer in accordance to the list of names available in the computer (Dennis, et. al, 2010).
Hohmann (2003) insists that, a rational decision is based on reality and not assumptions. Decisions made using software tools and computers lack such an essential feature. This is because most of the data and procedure used focus on assumptions and approximation. As a result, they do not provide decisions, which are rational though they increase swiftness whilst making decisions.
In most cases, the concept of reality in a rational decision constitutes the ideas and factors experienced in life. Thus, it should not be a technology-based decision but rather a process that exemplifies life experiences.
Even though, managers can use computers and software tools in decision-making, such technologies do not guarantee rational decisions. Consider a society based organization concerned with empowering young people such as ‘International Federation of Liberal Youth’. It is obvious that such an organization will need to address the real factors affecting the community. This means it should seek background information from youths residing in the area, contrary to seeking such information from online sources.
The youths will give the organization fast-hand information based on personal experience. This is unlike online sources, which rely on articles posted by individuals lacking information from newspapers and other third party sources. In the event that the manager decides to acquire information from online articles, it will culminate in a less rational decision. This means that the continuous use of computers and software tools do not help managers make decisions that are cogent (Zaraté, 2008).
According to Keen & Sol (2008), decisions made with the aid of technologies are not convincing. This is because they lack human touch, which include emotions and exact proof (Keen, 2008). As a result, the persons affected might fail to accept or get convinced.
For example, if Coca-Cola Company is retrenching its employees, the management ought to base the selection of these employees on their efficiency at the workplace. In cases when an employee is retrenched basing on a random computer selection, the decision might not convince the concerned employee, especially when he or she has been working efficiently.
Eventually, the employee might end up contesting the decision because it does not address other important factors like input into the company. Most importantly, managers might use computers and software tools in making balanced decisions on matters concerning business. However, the decisions might not be rational even when the technologies are used frequently (Williams, 2003).
It is a fact that, using computers and software tools in decision-making do not make them more rational, but rather encourages personal preferences and biasness. This happens when managers instruct the individuals entering information into the organizational computers to consider certain processes that favor their decisions at the expense of other employees or colleagues.
This is not only a poor and insincere managerial practice, but also unethical behavior. It is noteworthy that the use of these technologies should be discouraged as they compromise managerial decisions. It is noteworthy that their frequent use might encourage poor leadership. As a result, it is advisable for managers to use this technology where applicable.
For example, consider a multinational company such as Unilever. If its board members request the manager to provide information concerning the number of employees that have been issued with company insurance cover, the manager might provide wrong information. This is because he will want to prove to the board that he is working efficiently so that he can receive favors such as a salary or allowance increment.
In achieving this, he might issue the person in charge of ‘company’s Information Technology’ with false information. This information will be posted in the company website thus; the board members will access it. This is at the expense of those employees who are perceived as covered by the company insurance yet they are not. Hence, the board will make a decision that favors the manager basing on false and biased information (Ranganathan and Sethi, 2002).
According to Zaraté (2008), as an organization pursues managerial duties, organizational objectives are considered before decisions are taken. Thus, the use of software tools and computers in enhancing the decision-making process might make an organization fail in achieving its objectives.
This leads to less rational decisions that do not meet the company standards because individuals who designed and programmed these technologies have no idea about the company’s objectives. An illustration pertains to the ‘United Nations World Food Programme’. This organization might focus on maintaining steady food provisions in war torn regions like Darfur refugee camp.
Then all of a sudden, the manager might come across information in the internet that another organization has provided food to this region that will last for significant periods. Hence, the manager might decide to conclude the provision of food to this area. It is evident that he will have used the information acquired in the computer to make the decision. Even though, the decision will be rational, it will make the organization fail in achieving its purpose (Zaraté, 2008).
The technologies used by managers in decision-making do not facilitate rational decisions but rather encourages lethargy at the work place. Thus, managers delay decision-making duties. Furthermore, they end up making late decisions using these technologies. As a result, they are often rushed and less rational.
For example, consider an organization like ‘British petroleum limited’. When the executive director is supposed to make a decision on which contractor to give the tender for the renovation of the company’s underground petroleum reservoirs he might delay this decision.
This is because he knows he can make a choice swiftly using the random selection options offered by the computer. Hence, he might wait until the dying moments before doing so. In the end he can chose a contractor who is less qualified as he does not have the time to scrutinize their qualifications. At this time, he will have made a less rational decision because of random selection (Harmon, 2003).
Jain, (2010) insists that, when on duty, managers gain experiences and skills that cannot be attained theoretically in class. As a result, this helps them in the making decisions that are more rational. In the event that they start using technologies when making their decisions, the managerial expertise and experiences gained previously will be diminished. Hence, they will start making less rational decisions. Consider the ‘executive director of British Airways Company’.
If he makes decisions basing on his interaction with personnel, he will have good working relations and excellent managerial skills. However, if he disengages from the employees and starts basing his decisions on the management literatures found online, his managerial skills will diminish. It is obvious that workers will not be contented with his leadership, as he will engage in less rational decisions. Thus, these decision-making technologies should not be used over extended periods (Jain, 2010).
Conclusion
Frequent use of computers and software tools by managers makes their decisions irrational since it limits their scope. Additionally, such decisions are on numerous occasions prone to errors. This is an indicator that the data used are based on inaccuracies.
It is further indicated that the decisions arising from data amassed by computers and related devices are less rational, upon comparison to decisions made when a manager interacts with personnel. It is not forgotten that human conscience is a vital constituent in the decision-making procedure; however, it significantly lacks whilst utilizing computers and related software.
Information found in computers and software tools are founded on assumptions and approximation rather than reality. This indicates that technologies fail to add value to the rational decisions taken by managers. On the other hand, some people believe that computers provide managers with detailed and analyzed information that assists them in making decisions. In the end, they consider these technologies as added advantages to the manager’s decision-making skills.
References
Birrell, N. & Ould, M. (2008). A Practical Handbook for Software Development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Dennis, A. Rennecker, J. & Hansen, S. (2010), Invisible Whispering: Restructuring Collaborative Decision Making with Instant Messaging. Decision Sciences, 41: 845–886.
Harmon, P. (2003). Business process change: a manager’s guide to improving, redesigning, and automating processes. California, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Hohmann, L. (2003). Beyond software architecture: creating and sustaining winning solutions. Massachusetts, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Jain, L. (2010). Handbook on Decision Making: Volume 1: Techniques and Applications. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Keen, P. & Sol, H. (2008). Decision Enhancement Services: Rehearsing the Future for Decisions That Matter. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Longman, A. & Mullins, J. (2005). The rational project manager: a thinking team’s guide to getting work done. New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Ranganathan, C. & Sethi, V. (2002). Rationality in Strategic Information Technology
Decisions: The Impact of Shared Domain Knowledge and IT Unit Structure. Decision Sciences, 33: 59–86.
Williams, W. (2003). Management, Volume 1. Ohio, OH: Thomson/South-Western publishers.
Zaraté, P. (2008). Collaborative Decision Making: Perspectives and Challenges. Amsterdam: IOS Press.