Influence of decision styles on use of decision models

This article discusses how the “decision style” of an administrator influences the adoption and use of particular decision models. Several “interactive” and “analytical” decision models often used to guide decision making are described and critiqued to point out their virtues and deficiencies. Propositions are suggested that contend that “systematic,” “judicial”, “speculative”, and “intuitive” styles have clear-cut preferences for a particular decision model. This model seems to be used, even when another would be more suitable. Effective decision makers are postulated to adapt their styles, or at least to see the benefits of different styles. Mixed-mode models are proposed that seem to simulate the behavior of successful decision makers.     

Identifying and appraising how managers install strategy

Cases were profiled to identify tactics used by strategic managers to implement strategy and to determine which tactic was the most effective in promoting adoption. Analysis revealed that four archetype tactics were used almost exclusively. An ‘interventionist’ approach had the best results but was used in only one case in five. ‘Persuasion’ and ‘participation’ were next most effective tactics, and ‘edicts’ the least effective. The implications of these findings for strategic management practice and the needs for further research are discussed.     

Better Decision-Making: a Field Study

Based on a large research project in north America, this article suggests that only about half of managers' decisions are successful, and that managers themselves are often unaware that the way that they go about making decisions is the main cause of failure. The implication is that inadequate decision-making techniques cost billions of dollars each year in wasted time and money. The author analyses the way managers behave at different stages of the decision-making process and identifies guidelines for best practice from the experience of the managers involved.     

Leverage,Resistance and the Success of Implementation Approaches

The research reported in this paper explored the success of implementation approaches used by managers with differing amounts of leverage facing resistance from key stakeholders. The explanatory variables were implementation approach and resistance, measured by the extent of stakeholder support, scale and disruptiveness of the decision, as well as the implementing manager’s leverage. ‘Intervention’ was found to be the most successful approach, no matter what situation faced a manager seeking to implement a decision. Intervention proved to be a viable substitute for participation that has a favourable adoption rate and a dramatic increase in timeliness. Persuasion and edicts were often used and generally unsuccessful. More implementation success seems possible if other approaches are used. The findings indicate that the most successful approach, intervention, was not subject to situational influences. This questions the value of contingency frameworks that call for an implementation approach to be selected according to the demands of the situation.     

Types of organizational decision processes

Seventy-eight case studies of decision making were profiled to identify the nature of the process. Analysis revealed evaluative, historical model, off-the-shelf, search, and nova process types. These processes differ in their approach to idea generation, the guarantors applied, and process-management rationale. Variations in each type are described to lay out the distinctions between the processes. The study found that managers do not use the normative methods prescribed by scholars for good decision making. Most decision processes were found to be solution centered, which seemed to restrict innovation, limit the number of alternatives considered, and perpetuate the use of questionable tactics.     

FLEXIBLE DECISION STYLES AND THE CHOICES OF TOP EXECUTIVES

Managers who have access to several modes of understanding have been described as ideal decision-makers. This article reports on research that explored how flexible styles of decision-making, defined by the number and kinds of accessible modes of understanding, influence the choices of top executives. Instruments were used to measure attitude toward ambiguity and uncertainty and to determine the style of the participating top executives. the participants were asked to evaluate eight capital expansion projects in terms of adoptability and risk. Inferences about decision-making were drawn from these evaluations. the tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty scores and the adoptability and risk ratings were associated with the participant's style. Top executives with a flexible style who have access to each of the modes of understanding were found to be aggressive decision-makers with a high tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty.     

Organizational De‐development*

ABSTRACT Organizational decline prompts leaders to downsize, reducing the size of the workforce in an attempt to cut costs. This paper discusses some of the dangers of downsizing in which organizations experience an unanticipated and unwanted loss of core competencies. An alternative to downsizing is offered, showing how organizations can ‘de‐develop’ by slowly and deliberately moving to a lower order of organized complexity, retaining essential core competencies and supporting functions. To produce a ‘soft‐landing’ that preserves core competencies, a new identity is forged and connections to the new identity are uncovered. The connections point out what must be preserved, such as a crucial channel for key products, for the new identity to survive and flourish. The de‐developed organization preserves customers, products, markets, channels, revenue sources, alliances, skilled people, ways to organize, and/or image crucial to the new strategic identity before letting go of the remaining customers, products, etc. The paper identifies conditions under which de‐development can be desirable and suggests a ‘devolutionary’ process that points out some of the key moves needed to reduce organized complexity and realize a soft landing.     

Pseudoplanning

The tactics used by sponsors to manage a planning process is an important cause of plan failure. When the process is manipulated or its management ignored, pseudoplanning results. Several case studies were analyzed to identify types of pseudoplanning. They are called, “What's the problem,” “omnipotent planners,” “transported ideas,” “pooled ignorance,” “do it my way,” “change as given,” “surrender,” “takeover,” “sciencism,” and “empty phases.” Each is described to point out how they led to poor planning practice.