Group Decision Making

Decision making in organizations has been described as a process of behavior with the economic model (or total rationality) at one extreme, and with the social model (or complete irrationality) at the other extreme (Kimberly and Rottman, 1987). This description implies that only irrational decision making accords human values precedence over economic values. In the organizational environments of the early1990s, some middle ground between these extremes must be found, for it is evident that neither set of values can be ignored. In many organizations, managers have been confronted with the tasks of making severe, undesirable, and unpleasant cuts of personnel and services in a hasty manner, because, in part, they failed to heed economic values in earlier decisions. Similarly, organizations have often been forced to retract decisions, and to act in confusing manners, in cha

. . .
hnique. Consensus is sought in Japanese organizations through application of nominal group decisionmaking. In American organizations, nominal group decisionmaking is often found to be ineffective. Collective decisionmaking, to the Japanese, means extensive and extended consultations between all of the managers within an organization whose organizational units will be affected by the decision, until a true consensus is reached (Cox, 1982). In many American firms where collective decisionmaking has been implemented, however, it is often more of a process of senior managers informing subordinate managers of the desired decision, and, in turn, obtaining concurrences without necessarily developing a true consensus (Cox, 1982). Most American managers, in those instances where the collective decisionmaking approach has been adopted by American firms, have not demonstrated the necessary willingness to take the time required to develop a true consensus. Most senior managers have not demonstrated a willingness to compromise with subordinate managers on decisions. Lastly, most subordinate managers have not demonstrated a willingness to challenge their organizational superiors on decisions (Cox, 1982). Teamdevelopment promotes t
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Liverpool Wilson, QUALITY CIRCLES, Kimberly Rottman, Peters Waterman, Managerial Responsibility, Noe Kirsch, Trophy Company, Szilagy Wallace, MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT, Publications Main, decisionmaking process, nominal decisionmaking, evaluation process, performance evaluation, performance appraisal, management development, performance evaluation process, gortner 1990, managerial responsibilities, quality circles, assessment center, longenecker liverpool wilson, liverpool wilson 1988, schmitt gooding noe, assume managerial responsibilities,
Approximate Word count = 3203
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Group Decision Making