If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Decision Making. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Decision Making paper right on time.
Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Decision Making, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Decision Making paper at affordable prices!
Assignment
"Analysis & Decision Making and Conceptualizing Decision Making Process"
Extended Course Cheltenham 00 Module MB 4
University of Gloucestershire
Dr. Kim Pembridge
Sumitted by
Gernoth Dobianer
Köhlerstr. 1
A 681 Meiningen
Words 16 (incl. Table of Content and References)
Table of Content
1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE SET UP OF A SELF DIRECTED TEAM (SDT)
DECISIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE GROUP4
4THE HOSTILE TAKEOVER5
5CONCLUSION6
6LITERATURE8
Abbreviation
CEOChief Executive Officer
SDTSelf Directed Team
Executive Summary
The following focuses on the group work and decision processes of group number three during the airline simulation. From the perception of the group members, group three has clearly won the game although the time was not enough to further verify the results. Group dynamics accelerated dramatically by the time the first group (number four) was acquired by a hostile takeover. Group three sought mutual understanding with the board members of the acquired group and it was anticipated that this group would overtake group number two in the next quarter. The assumption is that the reader is familiar with the details of the simulation.
The objective was to achieve a coherent group who could make decisions for the organization unencumbered by hierarchy.
The Set Up of a Self Directed Team (SDT)
After a short discussion the group decided not to install any hierarchical organisation and to decide on issues based on consensus. One of the reasons was to a preclude potential interpersonal conflict between two group members for group leadership. The group consisted of seven people, four of whom used to work together from earlier times. The other three joined in from an earlier MBA program. Nevertheless, the responsibilities were shared and strategy and tactics were discussed among team members. Appelbaum et al (1, p.60) states that "the very act of bringing people from different backgrounds together may be the reason why they fail to achieve their objectives". However, this was not so in this case.
At the onset, the group discussed the target outcome of this simulation and came quickly to the conclusion to reach a leading position in the shortest period of time. It was clear that not all groups could realize the desired growth rate without driving others out of business. Typically, this requires a certain set of actions. One of them was the idea of initiating a hostile take over of one of the groups. However, this approach did not get the full approval of the group. The idea was brought in by the author and led into conflict with another group member who believe otherwise. This proves Appelbaums' et al (1, p. 65) statement that " Aggressive behaviour could be related to insecurity in terms of the managers situation in the team". The disagreements over approaches and strategies worked in two ways firstly, the different views allowed group members to see the diverse options available to them and secondly, the different personalities allowed group members to see the kind of inter-personal relationship that would or would not work for the group to exist as an entity. The group worked efficiently and effectively on these conditions which are the same conditions in the real world .
Decisions and their Impact on the Group
Omar et al (17, p.151) defined that a decision is a conscious selection from a course of action of which there is more than one option. The work within the group was clearly defined and each one worked towards an optimum outcome. The overall target for the next quarter was discussed and decided democratically. So far, those steps never led the group to a point where a conflict could show up.
Vallaster et al (00, p.40) states that there is an increasing tendency in organisations to assign groups to solve strategic issues. Furthermore it is mentioned that most academic contribution in this field ignores the impact of individual and social perception processes in strategic decision making. The factors which affect the result of group decisions are
Øcognitive variables ( such as information, research)
Øaffective variables ( group identification )
Øcommunication-oriented variables ( style of interactions )
When the group was formed there was a wariness among the members and communication was limited. Some members were waiting for someone to be the trail blazer, while others did not want to move themselves from the centre or neutral position. . Reluctantly a discussion started and the target of the game was clear. The group wanted to win and followed the next question, how to achieve that. All participants explained their professional background and the team allocated responsibilities based on possible expertise from to respective backgrounds. From this point onwards, members worked on individual basis while focusing on the main strategic objective to be number one in the commuter airline market. Even in the absence of well defined hierarchical structure, each member of the group displayed willingness to listen to ideas on how to better achieve the objective. . This supports Vallaster's above statement in a way that once information flew on what everyone's former experience was and what he is capable of doing, a clear group identification with the common target to win was set and the ability of some team members to refrain from dominating the discussions had a heavy positive impact on the group performance.
Omar et al (17, p.156) states, that "the defence industry has been moving away from a hierarchical organization and authoritative style of management towards a more team-based and participative style"; furthermore, that " criterion for an effective, group decision-making method is that users are able to reach a decision easily and quickly".
The group made use of the large amount of data available to take a hard look and to make timely assessments, which enabled the group to be fully informed in making effective and prompt decisions. The availability of data likewise allowed individual members of the team to have a total grasp of the situation, of seeing the "big picture" even while working autonomously from the other members of the team.
The Hostile Takeover
The highlight of the simulation for various reasons was the takeover of group four. After careful consideration of the options on how to be number one, the group realized quickly that five players in the commuter airline market would be far too much and the teams would bewould be in an unproductive competition for market shares and fares. The information which all groups got after the first quarter has given a clear picture of what the other groups have attempted to achieve. The group assessed the strengths of the other teams as to who would be the strongest competitor and who would fit into the own strategy and target market. Group number four, as the strongest at the time fitted perfectly inperfectly in the portfolio and moves were made to acquire group four.
The psychological impact of the takeover was very interesting... The idea of a takeover was not expected by other members of the class as a legitimate course of action and must have upset some members of the class. However, the hostile takeover, as initiated and successfully achieved by the group, aside from its shock factor, cleared the deck away from the traditional and conservative postures towards more innovative, lateral thinking. The idea behind it was, what Morris (1, p. 7) elaborated on as the manoeuvre warfare, "a method of seeking a decision in a battle with the greatest economy of effort". The group was focused as Morris describes further "on the enemy and not on the battle ground and the speed of action and reaction , which always had to be faster than that of the enemy". It was known that group four was composed of highly professional team members who could have the ability to be strong (in terms of their ability to analyse any given situation) making them a formidable opponent in the future.
The real challenge was how to convince the team members of the acquired group in favour of acquisition. Group four reacted as anticipated. The efficiency and morale of the team members was zero after the takeover, but their CEO managed to get the team back to speed by convincing them of our idea.
Conclusion
The shift in the industry towards groups working on strategic issues as described in the literature correlates with the experience made in the airline simulation. However the experience made did not support the need for strong leadership. Surprisingly to the authors experience the group managed to take clear decisions without any hierarchical order and it did not support Appelbaum's statement that people from different backgrounds would fail to achieve the target.
Strong leadership always play an important role in decision making involving people of different backgrounds and persuasions. Inaction, confusion, lack of ideas, are the usual starting environment at any group-decision making session. Without leadership, the group will waste valuable time and effort to meander along on easy solutions and modest objectives. Good leadership will thus provide guidance and structure to the discussion. As most leaders are also good at assessing people, allocation of tasks usually goes to the right person (or a person who would be challenged by the new task) and do a good job out of it.
In the present business environment, traditional leaders, those who sit atop the hierarchy and lead without consulting others, are becoming out of date. New business leaders are the one who set the tone for new and bold vision. He leads because, as human nature so attests, someone has to, but would be leading if he has the right idea and the right mettle to see the project through successful completion; otherwise, he steps back and let the better man take the primary role.
Literature
Appelbaum, S.H., Abdallah, C., Shapiro, B.T. (1), "Team Performance Management", MCB University Press.
Morris, A.R. (1), "Manoeuvre Warfare-can the British Army cope?", British Army Review.
Omar, T.A., Kleiner,B.H. (17), "Effective Decision Making in the Defence Industry", Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Volume 6, MCB University Press.
Vallaster, C., Koll, O. (00), "Participatory Group Observation a Tool to Analyse Strategic Decision Making", Qualitative Market Research An International Journal, Volume 5, MCB UP Limited.
Please note that this sample paper on Decision Making is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Decision Making, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on Decision Making will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment .Live Paper Helpand you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
