Improving Decision Making, DB - Essay Example

For the set of activities demonstrated, I discovered different principles operating for each (activity). In the first activity, I chose to answer the midpoint response, since there are only two possible answers for each of the scenario depicted. However, the most interesting part of the activity that created an impression on me was the rationale behind the query on the two questions, which showed how Soviet and American actions are not radically different from each other. If anything, their actions are similar to each other.

However, it can also be refuted that the reason why people often answer not-so-confidently on these questions was the fact that nations or states are all capable of conducting such actions. That is, since the choice of states to be answered are limited only to the Soviet Union and the US, the questions cannot really accurately determine that indeed, people cannot determine the difference between Soviet and American political actions. It is also possible that respondents may have thought of another state or nation which can be applied in the context or scenarios given.

Thus, the first activity demonstrated how reasoning and decision-making are multi-faceted. While there are specific answers to challenges or problems, there are different ways in the manner by which the individual arrived at the answer. That is, the individual may have guessed correctly that for both scenarios, s/he identified the correct nation/state. However, his/her assessment in arriving at the answer may have been contributed by the fact that the facts of both scenarios are unique or somewhat identified to a single country only.

For example, the use of the term “party” in the first scenario signified the Communist party Soviet Union was popularly known for in the late 20th century. Similarly, the 1960s was a period of invasion and active political expansion and military movement for the US. Thus, responses for both scenarios were not motivated by the actions of the countries alone, but on the facts of the scenarios—the association of the facts of each scenario to a particular country.This finding from the first activity is reflected in the second activity, which discussed the issue of “calibration.

” From the first activity, it was shown how decision-making cannot be done solely on the basis of one criterion alone; instead, decision-making is composed of different facets that influence the individual’s decision to choose one solution over another one. In the second activity, the exercise demonstrated that assessing the accuracy of one’s response cannot be easily determined if the decision-making involved is a complex one, and cannot be answered by “yes/no” or a specific answer alone.

The exercise showed that responses cannot be calibrated because the response is absolute, and have no varying levels or degrees of correctness. It is only in cases wherein problems or challenges have several facts and information involved that decision-making becomes variable and not absolute.The fourth activity illustrated the importance of full disclosure in order to make the proper decisions. Non-disclosure of important facts in the scenario led the individuals to respond differently from those who had the complete information about scenario 4.

This activity showed how important it is to know that there had been an initial financial investment into the project, which made it necessary to continue the project, since it is vital to at least acquire a return of investment despite the fact that there was a newly-released airplane model that is comparatively better than the plane being produced/built. In effect, better assessment of business decisions stems from completeness of the facts of the case/problem at hand.