Making a Management Decision Process - Essay Example

Making a Management Decision Part Introduction: The performance appraisal is a management tool that is meant to encourage employees in a companyto become more competent in their current job functions and thereby promote self development for the productivity of the organization. Unfortunately many a time this tool is not used effectively leading to decisions by managers that are unsatisfactory and providing outcomes that are in contrary to the expected results and may be even viewed as illegal by the courts. (Alternative performance reviews). Down sizing is a road that both managers and employees dislike traveling on, but in current times a journey that needs to be undertaken to make a business enterprise more competitive. In such a scenario the performance appraisal tool, if it has been done in a proper manner, could be of significant use in arriving at the right decisions. Obviously this has not happened in this case and a review of the probable errors in the performance appraisal reviews would prove useful. Common Problems that Occur in Performance Appraisals: Employees in an organization comprise the human asset of the organization and needs to be managed with as much or greater care than the other assets of the organization. Many a time this aspect of employees is neglected by managers leading to faulty decisions in their appraisals and thereby leading to discontentment. For any performance appraisal to be effective it is necessary that those being appraised understand the standards required of them and against which they re being assessed. This has twin benefits in that the employee understands the process and accepts the managers decisions better an also can then set themselves to try and achieve the standards. Performance appraisals are used quite often just to assist managers in making salary raise decisions. This is likely to affect the regularity of the use of performance appraisals and its utility as a performance enhancing tool. Performance appraisal decisions are quite often found to be subjective and not objective. An example of this is that it is quite likely that the decision of he manager is affected by a single good or bad job done by an employee and fails to see the quality of the rest of the work done over the period. Top down performance appraisal decisions have the risk of being looked as being thrust upon the concerned individual and utilizing peer to peer and upward assessments to encourage greater acceptance among employees provides for better harmony. (Murray, Joanne. Effective Performance Reviews. A Step-by-Step Plan to Make Them More Meaningful). Suggestions for Eliminating Problems that Occur in Performance Appraisals: One of the ways of eliminating the likely disregard for the human asset value in an organization by managers is to train them on the value of it and ascertain the success of the training by assessing the acceptance level of the performance appraisals done by them. Retraining is the possible solution here. Just as the performance appraisal is expected to be done on a regular basis so too should the training and retraining programs on the value of the human asset and the performance appraisal as a productivity tool. Once the utility of performance appraisals is understood, managers would not be averse to utilizing this as a performance enhancing tool and increase the use of it and thereby avoid the issue of irregularity in its use. Once managers understand the real value of performance appraisals it is quite likely that the interval between performance appraisals would be shortened as they would find their team more responsive to attaining the given set o objectives. The training program should focus on the standards that need to be set for the performance appraisal. The advantages of employees understanding what is expected of them and the manner in which they would be assessed would encourage greater cooperation during the performance appraisal and better harmony after it. The training program needs to then focus on the inherent dangers of a subjective performance appraisal in place of an objective performance appraisal. The training program could highlight the loss of good employees from the team and the manager would end up with ineffective yes men that would effect the performance of the team and thereby the productivity of the organization as a whole. The greater emphasis on groups and teams could be used in the training program as examples of how the utilization of decisions made as a group are better executed and therefore performance appraisals could be a group effort with upward appraisals and peer to peer appraisals providing assistance to the manager in making effective appraisals for the group. (Performance Appraisal). Part – 2 Introduction: Taking decisions involves assessing the various alternatives available and the probable outcomes of the decision made. There are psychological principles involved in this process and these principles govern indicate the likely changes in the probable decision in keeping with the framing of the same problem in varying ways. The influence of frames in altering decisions is similar to manner in which the effects perspectives act on perceptual appearance. In our everyday life many of our decisions are affected as we are subjected to the use of these principles to present a frame that is likely to generate the anticipated decision. (Tversky, A and Kahneman, D. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice). 1. In the given scenario Milhouse has succumbed to the framing device utilized by the salesman in taking the decision that salesman wanted him to make and that is to go ahead with the purchase. The salesman with the ever so subtle use of presented the problem of decision making in the powerful form of a frame to extract the decision that was required by the salesman. This manipulation of the decision was done so cleverly that Milhouse did not even know that his thought processes were subjected this influence and believed that he was making the right decision by thinking in the right manner. In such a situation where a frame is presented to manipulate decision making the subject rarely is aware that of the inducement towards the taking of the particular decision. The salesman smartly shifted the concentration of Milhouse way from the actual cost of the purchase by the use of the contrast frame. The introduction of the cost of a can of soda as a comparison to the cost of the purchase when reduced to a daily basis caused Milhouse to focus on the ordinary and insignificant cost of a can of soda instead of concentrating on the actual money that would have to be shelled out for the purchase and whether his company needed it or could afford it. The contrast frame makes use of associations in place of the actual object and the trifling cost and importance of the association on most occasions result in the decision that is wanted by the manipulator, as was the case with Milhouse and his decision to make the purchase. 2. The decision of Milhouse could very well have been different if the frame used was different. Let us consider what would have happened if the salesman was one who presented a focus frame in that his sales pitch centered on the cost to benefit ratio and highlighted the benefits that would be derived by the purchase. There is every chance now that the decision for purchase would not be made immediately and done after verifying the issue as Milhouse would stile main concentrated on the cost of the purchase and the need to justify it. (Roads, K. 1997. Three Framed Victims). 3. An alternative frame would have become inevitable if Milhouse had to concentrate on what was the important part of the discussion, which was whether his company required the purchase and whether they could afford it. In short he needed to ask himself whether his decision would have been altered by any other frame or whether it was only this frame that made sense. Such thinking on the part of Milhouse would have lead to an alternative frame. (Roads, K. 1997. Frame Defense). 4. A frame, as defined by Roads, K., “is a psychological device that offers a perspective and manipulates salience in order to influence subsequent judgment”. A frame provides a perspective in such a manner that it manages the alignment of the viewer with regard to the issue on hand. In short the psychological frame induce an observer to delve on a particular issue from a certain perspective, just as a picture frame can flatter the artwork and still invite the viewer from the front. To provide a simple example of this is when the beef is labeled emphasizing its lean content rather than its fat content it causes people to focus on the healthy aspects of beef. A frame is capable of being manipulative in that it could be used to focus the attention of anyone only on the aspects and features that the manipulator would like the individual to and this is clearly in the contrast frame wherein Milhouse took a decision that he my not have otherwise. A frame is capable of influencing subsequent judgment as it comes before the persuasive attempt and suggests that the information that ensues is important and organized. The information that comes subsequent to the frame can be so organized as to suit the parameters of the frame. Thus the frame is not jus capable of containing and constraining but also assists in creating the picture that is seen. (Roads, K. 1997. Whats in a Frame?). 5. There were moral considerations in the salesman’s frame used on Milhouse. The implied moral suggestion from the side of the salesman was not to be penny wise and pound foolish in comparing the cost of the purchase to a soda. (Roads, K. 1997. Marwell & Schmitts 16). Literary References Alternative performance reviews. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from Toolpack Consulting. Web site: http://www.toolpack.com/performance.html. Murray, Joanne. Effective Performance Reviews. A Step-by-Step Plan to Make Them More Meaningful. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from, Management. monster. Web site: http://management.monster.com/articles/goodreviews/. Performance Appraisal. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from, Gregorio Billikopf Encina. University of California. Web site: http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7labor/06.htm. Roads, K. 1997. Frame Defense. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from, Working Psychology. Introduction to Influence. Web Site: http://www.workingpsychology.com/frdefens.html. Roads, K. 1997. Marwell & Schmitts 16. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from, Working Psychology. Introduction to Influence. Web Site: http://www.workingpsychology.com/marwell.html. Roads, K. 1997. Three Framed Victims. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from, Working Psychology. Introduction to Influence. Web Site: http://www.workingpsychology.com/3victim.html. Roads, K. 1997. Whats in a Frame? Retrieved February 10, 2006, from, Working Psychology. Introduction to Influence. Web Site: http://www.workingpsychology.com/whatfram.html. Tversky, A and Kahneman, D. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from Science, Volume 211, Issue 4481 Pp 453 -458 JSTOR. Read More