Decision+Making


 * __Decision Making __**

//“The organizational and social environment in which the decision maker finds himself determines what consequences he will anticipate, what ones he will not; what alternatives he will consider, what ones he will ignore.”// - J. March & H. Simon (1958, p. 139)

Decisions come about as a result of the mental process that leads to specific and alternative courses of action. While some of these decisions stem from our logical framework many are derived from our deeply engrained cultural programming. Literature commonly calls them ‘personal and cognitive biases.’ Many tools are available to help us understand and better ‘frame’ our decision making style. Most notably, the Myers-Briggs indicators are used to study how personal style influences a decision maker’s course of action (Myers, 1962).

Further, in our increasingly globalized world, making decisions is a complex task that needs to consider several factors. “ The Elements of the global manager’s environment can be divided into four categories: economic, legal, political and cultural” (Thomas, 2008, p. 10). The author further suggests that prior to making decisions, a global manager entering must acquire the knowledge and skills on multi-faceted and country-specific issues. While economic, legal and political realities are tangible and easily acquired, he argues that cultural aspects are much harder to define and hence pose a significant challenge to international managers (Thomas, 2008).

Additionally, geographically dispersed managers face a variety of decisions on a daily basis. Making choices are normally done automatically and rely on deeply engrained norms and values the individual manager possesses. This handbook suggests that when confronted with making a new decision an international manager should to examine deeper and alterative dimensions as they relate to the his/her new environment.

To help us better understand the various aspects of how we relate to other people and cultures several frameworks have been developed. In their book, //Riding the Waves of Culture//, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) established a model which includes the following dimensions of cultural differences noting that cultures do not purely fall under a particular dimension as they all encompass elements of each. :    As most are aware, the first step of making a decision is normally ‘ problem definition’. Thomas (2008) argues that “ Managers from cultures with a doing or problem solving orientation such as the United States might identify a situation as a problem to be solved well before managers from being or situation-accepting cultures such as Indonesia and Malaysia,” (p. 95). Additionally, the amount of information required prior to making a decision varies among various cultures. For example, East Asians have a more holistic approach to decisions and consider more information than do Americans (Choi, et al., 2003). Research also indicates that people from //individualist// cultures are more likely to evaluate a variety of alternatives than those from //collectivist// cultures.
 * // Universalism versus Particularism // (rules versus relationships)
 * // Communitarianism versus Individualism // (the group versus the individual)
 * // Neutral versus Emotional // (the range of feelings expressed)
 * // Diffuse versus Specific // (the range of involvement)
 * // Achievement versus Ascription // (how status is accorded)

Furthermore, to make decisions a manager needs to be ‘ rational.’ The research of Thomas (2008) indicates that while rationality is heavily related to cognitive limitations, cultural aspects also come to play. He argues that for some cultures it is important to appear rational (eg. US) when making decisions while others weigh more value on the intuitiveness of the decision making process (Japan). Reasoning in //individualistic// cultures would therefore be free from contradiction; while contradiction may be embraced in //communitarian// settings where decision makers may be able to relate to both sides of the argument and further seek compromise in solving problem.

The level of confidence in the decision making process is also culturally bound. Research argues that //collectivists (communitarians//) display greater confidence in the viability of their decisions. In contrast, //individualists// might demonstrate less certainty by considering more possible negative outcomes of their decision. For example, referring to a 2001 Greer & Stephens study, Thomas (2008) said that “when asked to list possible reasons why their decision might be wrong, Chinese respondents produced far fewer reasons than U.S. respondents” (p. 100).

Finally, the time required to make a decision is also culturally related. //Individualistic// cultures, such as in the US, will vest decision-making authority to a few seniors, while, //communitarian// cultures will involve a variety and more inclusive group – regardless of seniority – in the decision making process. This also relates to the time orientations of cultures, where some (like the Arab world) are more lax about time than in cultures that relate decisiveness to how quickly one makes a decision.

It is worth mentioning that cultural distinctions are not only nationally bound but are also clearly visible //within// organizations. For example, a participatory decision making culture may be more prevalent in some organizations than in others. In fact, some believe that non-profits tend to be more inclusive in their decision making than the corporate, often top-down culture.

Additionally, decision makers need to decide which form of decision making is more appropriate to their context and shared group culture. Johnson and Johnson (2002) list the following methods:  Teal Team  was definitely communitarian in it decision making. Consensus was sought and //power distance// was high. Decision making felt shared with hierarchy absent. Setting up a weekly facilitator helped distribute the decision making task to all involved. Clarity of goals and tasks, as well as mutual respect and trust, aided in the smooth decision making process we experienced. For example, we decided on distributing the topics by each choosing their preference. The last member to choose topics was asked if she was comfortable with her choices which confirmed the group’s double checking to make sure all are comfortable with the decision. Additionally, when it came to finding a title for our handbook, it seemed that consensus was not going to settle it and a voting process was suggested.
 * 1) ** Decision by Authority without discussion ** – This method should be used only when time is too scarce, or in authoritarian cultures when they expect the leader to make the decision. This method may also become necessary at times when other group members lack information allowing them to contribute to the decision-making process. //Communitarian// cultures may be offended by this method of decision making.
 * 2) ** Expert Member ** – This may not be a good method to use for //Diffuse// and //Communitarian// groups. In an A//scription// oriented culture, a problem may also arise if the ‘expert’ happens to be female.
 * 3) **  Decision by Authority after discussion  **  – This seems to be a method that balances out the other more extreme approaches. However, it does come with its disadvantages. Cultures with high // power distance **[1]**  // may feel that their involvement need not stop at the consultation stage as they see themselves fully participating in the decision making process.
 * 4) ** Majority control ** – Through voting, this is a method where //individualistic// and //specificity// -//oriented// cultures thrive. Additionally, many non-profits seem to shy away from this method preferring the building of agreement on the decision among the whole group.
 * 5) ** Consensus ** – Wwhile taking more time, this seems to be the preferred option for intercultural work teams. It is the method that produces high quality decisions by capitalizing on available resources and in turn elicits the commitment of all members to uphold the decision. //Specificity// cultures (eg Netherlands) will most likely not have the patience for building consensus and would not be too comfortable with it.


 * Skills and Strategies for Decision Making**

To start, when entering a entering a ‘strange land,’ avoid unilateral decision making and embrace diversity. A significant amount of research has proved the superiority of group over individual decision making and confirmed that the group process results in new ideas and insights that prove valuable to all (Johnson & Johnson, 2006). Johnson and Johnson also state, “ In general, more homogeneous groups make less effective decisions than heterogeneous groups. The more heterogeneous the group the more frequent the conflict among group members and the greater group productivity” (p. 299).

With this new attitude established, you will need to study and understand the peculiarities of this new culture. Read as much as you can, watch a movie or two, and talk to as many people who have experienced working and/or living in this particular culture. Their insights will be invaluable. Be careful, however, of their generalizations; maintaining an open mind is just as important.

Equipped with attitude and knowledge, you will then be faced with the challenge of figuring out which decision making methods are more appropriate to your context and new environment (see list above). With that, you need to develop your cultural intelligence. Earley and Mosakowski suggest a multitude of strategies to cultivate cultural intelligence. Most importantly, they suggest participating in cultural awareness training programs.

Geographically dispersed teams face an additional challenge of lacking sufficient face-to-face interaction, however they should be encouraged to take full advantage of the electronic audio-visual technology to help them arrive at better decision making. (Refer to the //Facilitating Technologies// section for more information) **//Strategies and Skills //** ·  Avoid unilateral decision making, consider consensus building and embrace diversity . ·  Study and understand the peculiarities of the new culture (read, watch a movie, etc.)  ·  Participate in cultural awareness training  ·  Make minor concessions on present decision-making process  ·  Take full advantage of audio-visual electronic technologies  ||

   [1]  //Power Distance // is one 4 nationally based cultural dimensions as defined by the well recognized study of Hofstede (1980) and refers to the degree to which members of a group accept the right of others to exert authority over them.