Suchergebnisse

Public & private sector decision making is studied with an experiment. The study compares decision making in a tax-supported general purpose governmental agency with that done by a business firm selling to a market, using a simulation to capture differences in the preferences & practices of mid-level managers working in the two sectors. The simulation calls for participating managers to assess the risk & prospect of adopting budgets tailored to match each sector. A cognitive culture that stresses analysis, speculation, bargaining, or networking is employed to fashion a budget appropriate for a public & a private sector organization, each with a controversial & a noncontroversial budget amount. The literature on public/private differences was consulted to make predictions, suggesting that public sector managers would favor bargaining & networking & private sector managers would favor analysis & speculation. The cognitive style literature suggests that managers favor budgets constructed with an approach that is consistent with their preferred cognitive style & see less risk in the choice, except in a public setting where risk would be unaffected. The study finds that private sector managers are more apt to support budget decisions made with analysis & less likely to support them when bargaining is applied. Public sector managers are less likely to support budget decisions backed by analysis & more likely to support those that are derived from bargaining with agency people. Tables, Appendixes, References. Adapted from the source document.

Forces that set in motion a strategic decision making process were uncovered from 352 strategic decisions. Decision making was initiated by claims from stakeholders that pointed out salient concerns and difficulties and prompted directions to be set that guided a search for ways to respond. The study identified the types of claims and directions that prompted action and how these claims and directions influenced decision making success, looking for best practices. Success improved when claims were performance based and when the search for alternatives was directed by agreed upon performance expectations. Success declined when claims and directions inadvertently limited search or framed the strategic choice as an action to be taken.

AbstractPlanning identifies activities that create possibilities and change indicates the steps taken to implement a preferred plan. Recognizing the interdependency of of planning and changes is essential. In successful organizations, these activities are merged into a process that is managed by someone with authority. This paper discusses the benefits of 'planned change' and the difficulties that arise during planned change. Cases are used to illustrate essential steps in a successful planned change effort.

One hundred and sixty-three decision cases were explored to determine how managers carry out formulation during organizational decision making. Four types of formulation processes were identified (called idea, issue, objective-directed, and reframing) as well as the tactics decision makers apply to carry out each process type. Decision adoption, merit, and duration were used to determine the success of each process and tactic. The implications of these findings for decision makers and researchers are discussed.

ABSTRACTOne hundred and seventy‐seven cases profiling organizational decisions were analyzed to determine how managers carry out formulation as they initiate a decision‐making process. Analysis revealed that formulation was carried out by applying problem, idea, target, and reframing tactics. Decision adoption rates, decision value, and time to carry out the decision‐making process were used to determine the success of these tactics, controlling for situational effects of importance, urgency, resources, and management level. Reframing was found to be the most successful tactic under all conditions, but was the least frequently used by decision makers. Problem and idea tactics were the least successful and success did not improve with additional resources, but these tactics were used more often than the other tactics. Problem tactics were even less successful when applied to urgent and important decisions. Target tactics were surprisingly effective for crises and important decisions. Decision makers seem prone to use ineffective formulation tactics and give little consideration to the opportunities or constraints imposed by the situation as a tactic is selected.

ABSTRACTCase studies of planning were profiled to identify how practitioners carry out a planning process. Five archetype processes emerged from the analyses which were named evaluative, historical model, off‐the‐shelf, search, and nova. These five processes were compared in terms of their adoption rate and perceived quality. The evaluative process was found to be the most successful, followed by the historical model and off‐the‐shelf processes. Nova and search processes had the least success. Contextual factors, such as time pressure and resources available, were included in the analyses to identify conditions of use for each process type. In situations where time pressure was high or the planning concerned services, the off‐the‐shelf model produced the best results; in situations where time pressure was low or the planning concerned internal operations, the historical model produced the best results. Most of the planning activity in organizations appears to be informal and heuristic, ignoring the methods described in the planning literature.