Distinctive Properties of Group Decision-Making and Negotiation - Essay Example

?Coordination and Social Dynamics Introduction Group Decision Making & Negotiation Managerial decision making is regarded as the core of managerial tasks and often the managers make decisions based under pressure and with incomplete information (Baba and HakemZadeh, 2012). While certain managers justify their managerial choices based on facts and evidences most of them rely on outdated and partial information, individual observation, and personal experience. Additionally managers are confronted with loads of information and engage in practices which are difficult to evaluate and sometimes irrelevant to the organization. Group decision making brings in certain amount of analogical reasoning which gives managerial cognition a significant and purposeful direction. It emphasizes on facts like strategy making, such as pattern recognition, judgment and wisdom. These aspects are prominent among practitioners to develop strategies that are powerful. Group managerial decision lays emphasis on working in the best interests of the companies that bring about rationality in the managerial decision making. Group decision making helps in analogizing the way the philosophers and practitioners think. Conceptualizing and analogizing over a topic will help in developing a computational response which will also help in suggesting powerful analogies based on industry features and situations which affect the high level policies. These high level policies are highly interdependent to each other and deals with breadth of experience which is more beneficial than depth of experience. These dominant analytical and experimental approaches would help in antagonizing the situations, which are useful from the managerial perspective. It also requires the adopting of a qualitative approach and exploring situations which help in tackling difficult managerial situations. This theoretical framework will enable the development of different decision models that help in solving varied managerial problems and also developing methods for tracking the different managerial situations. This computational perspective helps the managers to create an environment which is verifiable and posing demands based on the cause effect relationships and cost benefit analysis. This model will also help in the development of a conceptual contribution which concerns discrepancies between managerial thinking and rationale decision model. The complexity of the environmental models increases with the environmental problems, which deal with the risk taking capacity of the organization. This perspective deals with the accuracy of perceptions and suffers from various shortcomings, evidences and natural environments The group decision making consist of several steps which include the following: Problem identification: The fundamental step would be to identify the problem which would help in determining the future direction of the organizational unit. The issues would be recognized and would be aligned with the appropriateness of the mission statement and current strategies for achieving goals (University of Rhode Islands, 2013). Problem Diagnosis: When a specific problem emerges then it would be manifesting itself in some form or the other and hence it should be treated with appropriateness and suitable tools. The long range problems would be discussed and diagnosed with recurring solution (University of Rhode Islands, 2013). Solution Generation: All the solutions are evaluated and the best decision is selected with thoughtful consideration (University of Rhode Islands, 2013). Solving the Evaluation and Choice: Evaluation meetings are held to improve the business process and also address the specific operational problems. Solution Generation: The best solution is generated after matching the needs and requirements with the criteria, cause effect and alternatives. The different types of decision is evaluated and the best decision is selected which can solve managerial problems. The commitment to decision is taken after much thoughtful consideration which can help in contribution to the improvement in the existing procedure (University of Rhode Islands, 2013). Negotiation is considered as an interaction between the two parties which have been directed at reaching to a conclusion and agreement that is based on common interests. The main purpose of negotiation would be resolving potential conflicts in spite of the widely dividing differences. Negotiation helps in exchange of information through communication and the evaluated information helps in formulation of strategies and techniques (Luecke, 2003).The formulated strategies originate from the negotiation relationship between the two parties and they help in discontinuing the relationship (Public Procurement Directorate, 2008). The element of continuity in negotiation is very important and emphasis will be laid on the entire process and not on a specific tactic or strategy. Negotiation helps the management on reaching to a particular decision and implements the decision (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2004). Negotiation helps in making future oriented decisions and helps in implementation of techniques and tools which helps in managerial decision making which ultimately lead to increase in organizational outcome. Comparison and Contrast between Group Decision Making & Negotiation Although, the impact of the various kinds of decision making is different it is observed that the main objective of corporate or individual decision making would be problem solving or applying a conceptual decision framework to derive meaningful interpretation and implications (Hall, 2007). The corporate decision making procedure helps in deriving value oriented means by which employees are ordering and participating in events to give clarity of meaning to an anarchic stream of events. Negotiation and decision making helps in the contribution of a communicative rationale, values, norms and corporate world beliefs that people construct as a result of interaction with the environment and individual. The interaction between the environment and individual can be categorized because of their core values and adaptive attitude. Epistemological disposition theory gives rise to a proposition that an employee can judge a fact is true or not whether he/she is holding particular belief as propositional attitude that a factual proposition is not (Dogan and Dixon, 2003). The conversion of beliefs into knowledge is based upon certain criterion which will be responsible for certain behavioural dispositions. The knowledge of the Epistemological debate revolves around the fact whether knowledge should be understood individualistically or should be justified by individual reference or not (Dogan and Dixon, 2003). Agency’s central position would be that individuals should have control over their actions and the agents of their actions should be enables by their psychological and social psychological theories (Jean-Philippe, 2007). Therefore, group decision making and negotiation should have focus on beliefs, hope and desires which helps in deciding the course of action in a hope that brings about intended change (Alvesson, 2012). The basic dilemma of the contrast between decision making and negotiation would be the difference between the correlation of social and individual behaviour. Group decision making and negotiation lays emphasis on the positive construction of the organizational structure but have different opinions about it. Group decision making lays emphasis on naturalism structure also known as the scientific method in which the structure exercises power over the agency methods which are predictable and very uncanny. The basic differences between the impact of negotiation and group decision making would be as follows: Group Decision Making Negotiation Structure The intent of the corporate board to produce meaningful interpretation of objectives and information that facilitate satisfied decision making which is based on successful risk management. Whereas, the negotiation lays emphasis on developing a hermeneutic structurism which presumably focuses on important issues like social construction where people’s actions are determined based on social actions of the employees and individuals. Agency It helps in promoting a naturalist agency in which the employees are the agents of their actions with their behaviour made predictable by their selfless interest. It helps in promoting a hermeneutic agency which presumes a subjective social world where the employees are more focused on making subjective perceptions of the social reality. Goals This involves selecting the best idea among their feasible decisions which would be cost effective, cost efficient and beneficial. It would also include quantifiable goals like market share or profit maximization among the given available resources. This involves solving problems which have salient risk features and also helps in determining the solutions in uncertain and problematic situations. Apart from these differences the main focus of both these elements are categorizing the social sciences by developing Metaethics framework to describe the different societal and marketing stages. Negotiation is subjective to group cohesiveness in group decision making and how a singular dysfunctional error can lead to hindrance in group thinking and the non existence of a cohesive group. It gives a sense of belonging to a powerful and protective group. Negotiation and group decision making would help in bringing about positive change and also lead to solving evaluative judgement which helps in reducing the errors. Lack of a group decision making and negotiation would reduce the possibilities of corporate governance and the legal imperatives. The common ground should be examined and the similarity between the analogical transfers should be examined and evaluated (Nilsson, 2008). Both these elements help in creation of a common ground and also the creation of flexible alternatives. The joint creation of alternatives implies flexibility in an organization and also leads to fulfilling of objectives and goals. The main objective of both these elements is persuasion, collective bargaining and mediation. Collective bargaining is almost similar to negotiation and would help in facilitating smooth interaction between buyer and seller. Although, bargaining is related to monetary transactions negotiation has a wider aspect and lays emphasis on non monetary aspects also. Reference List Alvesson, M., 2012. Understanding organizational culture. California: SAGE. Baba, V.V. and HakemZadeh, F., 2012. Toward a theory of evidence based decision making. Management Decision, 50(5), pp. 832-867. Buchanan, D. and Huczynski, A., 2004. Organisational behaviour. An introductory text. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Dogan, R. and Dixon, J., 2003. Corporate decision making: Contending perspectives and their governance implications. Corporate Governance, 3(1), pp. 39-57. Hall, K., 2007. Looking beneath the surface. Managerial Law, 49(3), pp. 93-105. Jean-Philippe, R. ed., 2007. Handbook of research on nature-inspired computing for economics and management. New Delhi: Idea Group Inc. Luecke, R., 2003. Negotiation. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Nilsson, K., 2008. Walking between decision models: Analogising in strategic decision making. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 3(2), pp. 104-126. Public Procurement Directorate, 2008. What is the Negotiated Procedure? [online] Available at: [Accessed 26 July 2013 ]. University of Rhode Islands, 2013. Group Decision Making and Problem Solving. [online] Available at: < http://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/scholl/webnotes/Group_DM.htm > [Accessed 26 July 2013 ]. Read More