The Value of Group-Based Decision Making

Decision-making processes have been acknowledged as the most critical practices that determine the present and the future states of any business organisation. Most scholars have affirmed that the company’s performance is heavily banked on the courses of actions because of decisions made by the managers (Ferrell and Fraedrich, 2015).

In the current business environments, the managers are looked upon to make decisions on the daily basis by the stakeholders, the partners, employees, and any relevant party to the company. However, the executive managers have been demanded to come up with solutions to challenges and problems affecting the operation of the firm with limited time provided. It has been reported that most persons in leadership and managerial positions have been unable to come up timely remedies to business problems especially in a busy operating organisation involving complex analytical processes to arrive at specified solutions.

However, an approach to tame the daily pressure that the executive leaders and managers are exposed to in decision analytics is through the adoption of group decisions. Despite the notion that group-based decision-making is slower than the individual decisions, scholars in business management have asserted that the group decisions are far much better than the single-handed decisions (Greco and Figueira, 2016).

The authors argue that group decisions are more accurate and reliable in problem solving since they involve the collective wisdom of the members. Additionally, this is in line with the presence of the diversity of ideas in arguments put across during the meetings. The diversity among the members ensures that the ideas are exhaustively analysed and examined before conclusions are drawn as solutions. These practices could be achieved through the decision-making theories that are presented in the report through the teamwork decision-making processes to solve the problem (Wheelen, Hunger, Hoffman, and Bamford, 2017).

Main discussion 

Problem definition 

The company has decided to lay off some employees in order to sustain the business operation because of losing two products due to the new government policies that had been recently implemented. The company comes up with a list of employees to be declared redundant which is handed over to the team of line managers to determine the employees to be laid off their jobs.

Situational analysis 

A situational analysis provides a mechanism to evaluate the internal and external factors affecting the operation of the business (Fleisher and Bensoussan, 2015). Concisely, the situational analysis can be inclined to the SWOT analysis where the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and the threats are evaluated to basing on the internal and the external factors affecting the business operation and the market shares. The defined problem in the organisation is an external factor which is a government policy affecting the company operations as a threat. The implementation of the policy by the government led to the banning of two products for the company implying that the less products would be manufactured than before.

Challenges with Group-Based Decision Making

Conditionally, the loss of the products meant that the company had to operate with the excess number of the employees since the production had been minimized. The managers acknowledged that such an operation would lead to losses since the workforce had to be sustained on the products left.

These conditions could result in incurring losses by the company due to high operation costs, which cuts into the profits as illustrated by (Robson, 2015). The phenomena above is an example of a weakness in the organisation, which the managers sought to address by laying off some employees. The company anticipated that through declaring some employees redundant could progressively lead to a sustainable operation that could carter for the payment of the remaining employees as well as generate returns on profits for the shareholders.

Sense making 

Scholars acknowledge sense making in business analytics as a concept that is perceived to draw meaning from the findings of the situational analyses (Liebowitz, 2013). The core aim of sense making is to arrive at decisions that are based on logical reasoning and thinking rather than structured decisions. In the application of this concept, the managers are mandated to seek the causes that led to the certain problem in business before dedicating efforts on coming up with solutions. For instance, the government policies could be implemented to control the production of certain products due to a number of reasons for the interest of the public. Additionally, the policies could lead to abolishing of some products due to the hazards that could be because of the usage of that particular product.

On the other side, it is logical for the company to reduce its task force following the reduction in the volume of production. If the firm holds, the same number of the employees while some goods are out of producing will result in an imbalance between the cost of production and the profits.

These would create an unsustainable business environment that can make the business to collapse or be temporarily closed down. The company has to come up with a framework that would foresee the laying off the employees to avoid losing the competent skills in the task force. Another viable reason for appointing a team of line managers in making decisions is to ensure there remains a balance across all the departments for an effective operation of the firm.

Formulation of potential solutions

Formulation of the potential solutions involves coming up with suitable decision-making models that would enable the team to perform analyses on the defined problem to provide recommendations and solutions to the board of directors of the managing directors (Axelrod, 2015). The process entails the identification of a number of models then defining each model in efforts to come up with the most suitable model for the problem. The selected panel outlined three decision-making models for scrutiny in order to come up one model to be applied in synthesizing of the problem. The three models are the classical model, rational, and the retrospective model.

Assessment 2: Focusing on Innovative, Smart Thinking, and Effective Group-Based Functioning

 A number of factors were considered in selecting the applicable decision making-model such as the type of data to collect, whether quantitative or qualitative, the nature of the problem, and the time allocated for coming up with the solution among other reasons. Through a series of meetings and discussions, the team identified the advantages and disadvantages of each model concerning the sizing down of the workforce problem allocated to them by the managers. The panel additionally considered the time factor and the complexity in using the model to reduce the number of employees.

Selection between the solutions

The retrospective approach was which aims to rationalize the situation was ruled out because the method heavily utilizes the qualitative data rather than the quantitative data, which was available for analysis. On the other hand, the administrative or the bounded rationality approach was sidelined due to the length of time involved in solving the problem as supported by (Newell, Lagnado, and Shakes, 2015). The model entails the sequential attention to the aspects in the defined problem, examination of the alternative solutions, deriving satisfaction from the alternative solutions, and heuristics, which cumulatively resulted to consumption of a lot of time therefore not preferred.

The timely decided to use the rational approach of decision making due to its precise and stepwise evaluation of the problem. The method is based on the economic theory that any decision made by the executive management is for the economic interest of the firm (Becker, 2017). The steps involved in the rational decision-making technique are the identification of the opportunities or the problem, collection of data or information, canalization of the situation, developing the options, evaluation of the options, selection of preferred alternative, and implementation of the decision made.

Decision-making based on the solutions

Using the rational approach, the identification of the problem stage, data collection, and situational analysis stages had already been accomplished. The next stage is developing the options or the alternatives for analysis (Pedrycz and Chen, 2015). Based on the employee data provided, the options are to come up with an order of elimination of the employees according to their age, seniority, performance indices, years of service, and the comments on their profiles. The panel had a task of prioritizing these attributes in their order of significance to the company.

Through consultative discussions among the team members, the employee aspects were prioritized in the following order beginning with the performance rate, the years of service to the firm, the key performance index (KPI), seniority, comments, then finally the employee age (Hansen, 2014).

Main Discussion

Using this order, the team evaluated the qualified and the unqualified employees while keeping in mind the balance across different disciplines while selecting the most competent personnel and sidelining the less competent under every category. The degree of competence was determined under independent teams and departments whereby the panel ensured that at least more than half the members of a group was retained while the rest were declared redundant. The final stage was the implementation of the decisions as presented in the section below.

Implementation of decisions 

The panel of the line managers was able to come up with the list of employees to be declared redundant through the application and evaluation of the employee aspects according to the priority of options to be retained and eliminated from the firm (Morden, 2016).

Testing team feedback on decisions 

(Facione and Gittens,  2015) demonstrates the importance of feedback as a critical tool to determine the accuracy of results in the analysis of decisions to solve problems. After coming up with the list of redundant and non-redundant members, the panel scheduled to conduct tests on the results to determine if there would be any changes to be made (Morecroft, 2015).

This was done by interchanging the developed options that would help to come up with other alternatives if there were any. The purpose of the feedback was to ensure that the team had exhaustively evaluated all potential alternatives during analysis and compare the results (Ragsdale, 2014). The tests and the feedback obtained reflected the same results of the earlier made decisions by the team. However, the feedback indicated that the two members, in essence, Angelo and David, who were eliminated at stage four, were retained making the total number of employees laid off to be 28.

Recommendations 

For the company to sustain its operation, it required a minimum of 275 employees after retrenchment of the task force. The panel having been given a list of 60 employees, the board of managers had recommended that they lay off at least 60% of the shortlisted employees.

The proposed percentage implied that 36 employees from the list should be declared redundant. However, after critical analysis of the given data, the team found out that the maximum number of the employees that can be laid off their duties was 30 while the minimum number was 28. The findings indicated that going beyond 30 would leave some departments and teams underworked or with shortages in the task force. (Laursen and Thorlund, 2016)explains the impacts on the shortage of the employees on business operations that it leads to demotivation of the existing members, overworking, taking longer shift hours, and reduced individual productivity among many disadvantages.

Problem Definition

However, the panel of the line managers acknowledged that the company currently consists of 300 employees whereby 275 are required for an optimal operation of the company. This fact leaves an opportunity to eliminate only 25 workers from the workforce. Given that the number of employees to be laid off was approximately 28 or 30, the panel recommended that the company should permanently lay off 25 workers while put the remaining five workers on a contract basis.

The anticipated idea was that the five employees could be called upon during the periods or seasons where there was an increased workload. This would ensure that the company does not walk into personnel shortages during peak seasons or during the seasonal increase in the market demand (Howitt, Medellin-Azuara, MacEwan, Lund, and Sumner, 2014). The team also illustrated that the contractual strategy for the identified workers will ensure the company does not incur the loses caused by the shortage of the workers as well as minimized profits due to the cost of production as a result of many redundant workers being paid.

Concisely, the panel of the line managers recommended that the elimination of the workers should not lead to the imbalance in the task force whereby a certain group of skills are laid off while leaving another group with most employees (Orr and Orr, 2014). The team proposed a framework that ensured balance across all the teams without interfering with the overall operations management.

Additionally, the team suggested that in the case where the government policies reverted their policies to allow the lost products, the same order of priority in the employee information would be adapted to during recruiting the employees back into the company. The decision-makers oversaw through potential changes that could happen in future thus structured a channel that could be used within a shorter time to get back the employees to minimize the inconveniences in the business.

After the elimination exercise, the panel of decision-makers conducted a series of meeting to figure out the best way to get the remaining team on track. It argued in the discussion that despite laying of the redundant members, there could be the possibility that some retained members could have been seeking consultations, technical support, and leadership skills from the redundant employees in one way or another.

The group acknowledged that although they had done an intensive analysis on the employee data, there could still be the existence of skills dependency by the retained members from some laid off members. For the company to seal such possible gaps left in the task forces, it recommended that the remaining employees be trained through short internal seminars to enable the re-adjustment of the employees and to bring all the workers up to the required speed.

Situational Analysis

Conclusively, the organized training will reinstate the confidence among the employees after congratulatory statements of qualifications to be retained by the company. The group consensus also insisted on communicating to the employees especially those who had lost their jobs through the means that would keep their privacy such as email addresses and text messages as per the code of ethics in a workplace (Menzel, 2014). By keeping the employment status private, the redundant members would appreciate since some could be humiliated or frustrated by the decisions made by the managers.

Conclusions 

The industries today are resolving to team or group decision making in business analytics due to the extensive and reliable solutions. Companies that have a complex system of operation calls for group decision making where a solution is arrived at through consensus and critical analysis of the arguments. It has been proven that although individual decision making is faster, the overwhelming evidence witnessed in solving of complex business decisions through integrated decisions has proven to be worthy than the latter (Solomon et al., 2014).

The individual decisions making processes have been recommended for smaller businesses since they have been associated with short-term solutions when it comes to massive companies. The long-term decisions for problem solving require a series of evaluations to the problem, research, and at times involves reviewing of the existing literature over the similar problem or business opportunity (Pettigrew, 2014).

Furthermore, the decision-making process in the report has illustrated the significance of group work, collaboration, and coordination of different participants to arrive at the solutions (Saaty and Peniwati, 2013). It is quite difficult and challenging to formulate the solutions to a problem that entails many variables to be analyzed and correlated to establish the links among the variables.

This calls for group decision-making that divides the variables or the aspects to be analyzed among the participants of the decision-making panel. Through this, it becomes easier to criticize, amend, or object some ideas put across by the members. With the collaboration of the mentioned advantages that come along with group decision-making processes, it is a conclusive proof that the team decision-making are more reliable than individual decisions in crucial business analytics and decision-making (Hwang and Lin, 2012).

References

Becker, G. S. (2017). Economic theory. London: Routledge.

Facione, P., & Gittens, C. A. (2015). Think critically. London: Pearson.

Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. (2015). Business ethics: Ethical decision making & cases. Scarborough: Nelson Education.

Fisher, R. J. (2012). The social psychology of intergroup and international conflict resolution. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

Fleisher, C. S., & Bensoussan, B. E. (2015). Business and competitive analysis: effective application of new and classic methods. New Jersey: FT Press.

Greco, S., Figueira, J., & Ehrgott, M. (2016). Multiple criteria decision analysis. New York: Springer.

Griffin, R., & Moorhead, G. (2011). Organizational behavior. Scarborough: Nelson Education.

Hansen, B. (2014). The economic theory of fiscal policy. London: Routledge.

Howitt, R., Medellín-Azuara, J., MacEwan, D., Lund, J. R., & Sumner, D. (2014). Economic analysis of the 2014 drought for California agriculture. University of California, Davis, CA: Center for Watershed Sciences.

Kilgour, D. M., & Eden, C. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of group decision and negotiation (Vol. 4). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

Kruglanski, A. W. (2013). The psychology of closed mindedness. London: Psychology Press.

Laursen, G. H., & Thorlund, J. (2016). Business analytics for managers: Taking business intelligence beyond reporting. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Liebowitz, J. (Ed.). (2013). Big data and business analytics. Florida: CRC press.

Menzel, D. C. (2014). Ethics management for public administrators: Building organizations of integrity. London: Routledge.

Morden, T. (2016). Principles of strategic management. London: Routledge.

Morecroft, J. D. (2015). Strategic modelling and business dynamics: A feedback systems approach. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Newell, B. R., Lagnado, D. A., & Shanks, D. R. (2015). Straight choices: The psychology of decision making. London: Psychology Press.

Orr, L. M., & Orr, D. J. (2014). Eliminating waste in business: Run lean, boost profitability. New York: A press.

Pedrycz, W., & Chen, S. M. (2015). Granular computing and decision-making. New York: Springer.

Ragsdale, C. (2014). Spreadsheet modeling and decision analysis: A practical introduction to business analytics. Scarborough: Nelson Education.

Robson, W. (2015). Strategic management and information systems. New York: Pearson Higher Ed.

Saaty, T. L., & Peniwati, K. (2013). Group decision making: drawing out and reconciling differences. Pennsylvania: RWS publications.

Solomon, M. R., Dahl, D. W., White, K., Zaichkowsky, J. L., & Polegato, R. (2014). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being (Vol. 10). London: Pearson.

Wheelen, T. L., Hunger, J. D., Hoffman, A. N., & Bamford, C. E. (2017). Strategic management and business policy. London: Pearson.