Research Paper on Management Decision-Making

Introduction

After the appointment of an informal leader, as proposed by the stakeholders; thus, the board of governors, an opportunity was given to the staff to select their ideal leader not knowing the consequences of our decisions. Mr. Robert, a perfect candidate and a friend to all was elected and given a probation period of six months to ensure the productivity and performance levels of the company was restored, since for the past four years under the leadership of Mr. Jonathan the company registered a 30 percent deficit before his appointment. With the necessary authority and power given to him, the leader proposed to the board of governors for an internal interview of the staff to ensure each employee was stationed on the entire department and workstation in accordance to his or her profession, academic history, as well as experience.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

One week later, all the employees received a memo according to his perception and the approval of the Board. All staff was to avail themselves for the interview and needed to present their professional papers, and in case any member felt that they were assigned in the wrong department they were to apply for the position in accordance to their training and experience. After the interview, there was an organization restructure; thus, some of the staff were promoted to management while others were demoted. I was encouraged to management not knowing the weight of the position. Unfortunately, there was downsizing at the office, out of 150 employees, only 98 retained their jobs, among those retrenched, were employees serving under 2-to-8 months contracts and the older employees who had attained the age of 50 and did not have academic papers to defend their position. Also, the company reduced the numbers of employees per department; thus, removing the position of secretary or office assistant to three from ten; therefore, each employee had to visit the office assistant department in case of any claims or the retrieval of client documents, making our work to be more difficult.

Procedural Fairness in Decision Making

First, Mr. Robert exercised procedural fairness in the organization by offering all the employees who were stationed in the wrong departments, to have an opportunity to work as per their academic and skill set experience (Walsh, 2017). Additionally, before the reconstruction of the company each member was issued with a memo and given ample time to provide the documents and attend an intimate interview. Next, the interview was as an opportunity for each member to defend himself/herself according to departmental duties effectiveness and efficiency. Moreover, he took the opportunity to promote those who deserved to steer the company to greatness and demote those who were not performing (Brockner, 2008). The only section where his procedural fairness was questioned was the retrenching of the elderly due to their age as well as lack of academic certificates. Mr. Robert acted according to the company policy of addressing equal employment opportunities to all since his management team comprised of equal numbers of men and women (Walsh, 2017). His mechanism of using effective leadership and excellent management promoted a healthy organization that scaled the performance of each employee; thus, the main reason as to other employees and I felt the individual responsibility was like punishment since we had adopted on the division of labor within teams making us lazy and unprofessional (Nelson & Quick, 2015).

Effects and Influence of Decision Making

Psychological studies emphasize that in the midst of negotiation, the central focus needs to be more than individual motivation to maximize results as well as minimize the losses an organization faces (Hollander-Blumoff & Tyler, 2008). Moreover, own rational leads to a person's cognitive mistakes making them vulnerable to enhance change and effective performance within the society (Hollander-Blumoff & Tyler, 2008). In other words, as per Mr. Robert's negotiation scheme, the emphasis was not individual growth or mistakes, but to outdo the level of bias behavior and equality within the organization by offering all employees an opportunity to defend their roles and positions in the company (Brockner, 2008). Distributive fairness was exercised when the leader came to understand that the company employed excellent managers but due to poor leadership they were offered jobs in departments that did not suit them (Brockner, 2008). The outcome was rejected by most, lawsuits were made, and conflicts arose. For example, with the reduction of department employee numbers by omitting the secretarial office, much was contemplated since the employees retrenched felt that it was merely a way of firing them without prior notice; thus, leading to lawsuits against Mr. Robert and the Board.

Conflicts arose both internally and externally since while others were happy with their promotions, other detested their demotion claiming that the leader had favored others (Brockner, 2008). Moreover, the conflicts brought about severe consequences such as deterioration of teamwork, increased workloads that led to employee burnouts, stress, and anxiety, the introduction of overtime working hours at the office and often most of the employees took their office work at home to accomplish the deadline (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Ideally, the procedural approach was a success since the company's lack of productivity was the congestion of employees who did not perform, but by reducing the numbers, promotions and demotions, and effective leadership and excellent management led to quality work performance since all employees were graded as per their performance; thus increasing the production level of the company.

Recommendation

It is a fact that change drives success within a corporation, but reducing the number of employees as well as that of departments can be vital to the company. In the case, I was the leader; there would not have been any retrench since the old staff had quality experience towards the work and they could teach that new team adapted easily. To promote quality, I would have enhanced on training all the staff on company policies and regulations, their work, expectations, and duty to the company. Moreover, I would have motivational and inspiring sections led by the elderly to help the new employees gather confidence, self-esteem, and accountability towards their work.

After the training, I would evaluate their experience, skills, and knowledge and then rank them according to their academic qualifications, experience, and ability to implement theoretical work into practice. From there, I would award the promising individual the managerial position regardless of age, gender, and ethnicity among other. Each employee would have to report directly to their immediate managers, and in case of any issues, it would be referred to me. By that, I would have solved the problem of laziness through motivation, controlled the rates of stress, anxiety, and burnout by maintaining the number of employees; thus, no one carries office work to do at home. Lastly, each I would have boosted teamwork by fusing employees with experience, knowledge, and skillsets.

Reflection

First, management and leadership are critical elements of procedural fairness and outcome. First, before making a decision there need to be evidence supporting the decision and it needs to be done according to the government and enterprise policies (Walsh, 2017). Additionally, even though bias character will always feature on various occasions involving decision making, but it will be advisable to decide depending on accountability of the company and not individual perceptions since it will enhance the competitive nature of the business (Brockner, 2008). Next, procedural fairness improves on equality regardless of academic certification level, experience, and skillsets; thus, if an employee can perform effectively and promote company productiveness, he/she needs to occupy that employment position.

References

Brockner, J. (Speaker). (2008, January 15). Procedural fairness: It's a good deal [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.obweb.org

Hollander-Blumoff, R., & Tyler, T. (2008). Procedural Justice in Negotiation: Procedural Fairness, Outcome Acceptance, andIntegrative Potential. Wiley on behalf of the American Bar Foundation, 33(2): 473-500.

Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (2015). ORGB 4. Stamford, CT: Cengage.

Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91, 114-121.

Walsh, B. M. (2017). Challenges for managers [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from University of Illinois Springfield Managing Organizational Behavior Blackboard: http://bb.uis.edu