Introduction
Based on Rappaport’s research, the Vroom-Jago model has classified the decision making process into five groups based on the actors involved in the process. Rappaport (1975). For each category, the model provides guidelines that are most appropriate under the circumstances. These categories determine the number of individuals participating in the decision process and their level of participation.
Advantages of rational decision-making
- It has the ability to determine the best possible option from an array of choices. Rappaport believed that the theory uses various weight matrices that are very efficient in ranking the most suitable options and this weighted matrix enables the identification of the risk factors associated with each choice and potential mitigation measures. Rappaport (1975).
- It enables decision makers to include all possible information for processing in order to arrive at a decision.
- This model is very effective in preventing emotional bias during the decision-making process since it involves a component of rationality process. Rappaport (1975).
Advantages of groupthink theory
- It helps individuals to strengthen their group, since they combine different skills in the decision-seeking process.
- In most cases, since personal opinions are sometimes biased, a broader perspective is enforced. Due to the number of people group. (McCauley, 1989)
- Due to collective understanding in the course of action, members understand each other before making a decision.
- A greater group commitment exists, since everyone has his/her opinion during the decision process (McCauley, 1989).
- With everyone’s participation in the decision-making process, it enhances group commitment.
Main body
In March’s theory, decision-making can be termed as the key fundamental element of the managerial process. Managers and people methodically make decisions based upon their perceptions or an established process. These perceptions comprise of interpretation of events, people, and things around them. These perceptions can sometimes lead to inaccurate and erroneous decisions March & Heath (1994).
James March and Herbert Simon (2002) led the study of decision making within organizations in their 1958 study. They noted that modern organizations were becoming more complex and uncertain, which leads to spending time and money on collecting information relevant for decision-making.
In problem analysis, we commonly apply the process of decision-making as an integral component of organization management that is. March and Simon also observed that in each phase of the decision-making process, factors such as reasoning, historical trends and the probability of uncertainty are continually examined (Handel, 2003, p.123.)
Experimental decisions based on March’s research indicate that when a person requires a significant level of certainty, the decision adopted is the correct one in terms of the desired outcome. Experimental decisions assess the implications of the decision in an environment that is similar to the actual situation that requires decision-making. In addition, experimental decisions analyze courses of actions to determine whether a similar decision should be undertaken. March & Heath (1994).
One major advantage of the experimental decision as observed by March is that it enables a person to investigate a desired outcome based on independent variables.
According to March, the trial and error decision-making process is very similar to experimental, but it has several distinct features. With the trial and error method, sample decisions go through a system of dynamic environments as a single document. The next step involves checking for viability from the resulting outcomes. March & Heath (1994).
Trial and error decision-making process uses scrutinized decision samples until an individual or organization arrives at the desired decision. March and Heath (1994). Unlike in experimental decisions where it only analyzes the courses of actions with the sole purpose of determining whether they are viable. Trial and error is most appropriate when a person is recklessly investigating the most suitable course of action that has the best result, such as trying to determine the best factors to combine which will lead to increase employee productivity. Cyert & March (1963).
Conditional decisions are determined by other determinants, which are usually dynamic in nature. In this case, decisions are a function of another associated factor used to guide the decision-making process, and they are as dynamic as the nature of the determinant variables. March & Heath (1994).
Leaders who have all the information and expertise to undertake such decisions without having to consult with any other party or stakeholder make authoritative decisions in an organization according to March. March and Heath (1994).
March believes that facilitative decisions are almost the exact opposite of authoritative decisions. Facilitative decision-making occurs when an organization combines employees’ unique knowledge and experience in an attempt to guide the decision process, mostly through teamwork Cyert, & March (1963). The organization eventually adopts a decision based on personnel expertise.
In facilitative decision-making process, employees get the essential skills to help them in making informed decisions. This in return highly motivates the employees.
March also believed that consultative decision-making is a form of the authoritative and facilitative decision-making process. Consultative decision-making is more or less a sugarcoated authoritative decision Cyert & March (1963). A CEO can use the pretext of consultations in their decision-making process. In the end, a decision maker will implement a decision that is not necessarily grounded in feedback. If carry out the consultative process properly, it is generally considered as a very valuable guide in this form of decision-making. Cyert & March (1963).
According to Simon, declarative decisions are not crucial for the daily functions of an organization, as these decisions are not within the employees’ job responsibilities. The declarative decision are commonly characterized by the mere fact that they are routinely undertaken during work processes and are not critical to compromise the work process of the entire organization. Handel, M.J. (Ed) (2003).
March and Simon referred to as standard operating procedures or programmed behavior. They also noted that usually, the individuals charged with making decisions did not mind the process because they followed routines that were within the organization and the role expectations of their job positions (Handel, 2003).
In the 1950s while conducting studies, Simon concluded people assumed that the people involved in the decision-making process were experienced at it. There was no questioning of whether the decision outcomes were the best possible probability. Simon (as cited in Davis, 2005) introduced the concept of bounded rationality. This concept involved individuals making the simplest decisions leading to the organization operating in a complex internal and external environment. Due to this, individuals have resulted to possessing limited cognitive capabilities, a concept that led Simon to believe that people are rational only within the boundaries imposed on them (Davis, 2005).
According to Rappaport, the empowerment theory for organizations and managers in decision making as developed by Rappaport states that actions or activities can give control and the repercussion of such measures results in a situation where the individual or organization has vital power (Rappaport & Seidman, 2000). It as well states that both the empowerment processes and outcomes vary because there is no standard that can fully capture any one context or meaning. Rappaport and Seidman, considered empowerment to be a connector that coupled a person’s resilient points and qualifications and their practical behaviors to social policy and social change. Rappaport, A. (1975).
The theory has a construct that links the mental health of an individual in the struggle of creating a responsive organization. The theory tends to constrain people to analysis their capabilities and knowledge as either proficiency versus deficits, or strengths versus weaknesses. Rappaport, A. (1975).
According to Rappaport & Seidman:
- The interpersonal aspect refers to people’s apparent control about their ability to make or influence decisions that affect them in their daily life. (Rappaport & Seidman, 2000).
- The interaction phase refers to the capability of individuals or organizations to analyze and comprehend the social and political environment in which they live by considering the fundamental agents, their link to the decision problem, and the factors that influence them to make a decision.
- The behavioral aspect of the empowerment theory states the following: the actions that people take to achieve their goals are not as important as trying to exert power and authority. (Rappaport & Seidman, 2000).
Conclusion
In conclusion, even though the empowerment theory includes various levels of analysis, Rappaport and Seidman’s research has mainly focused on the psychological empowerment aspect (Rappaport & Seidman, 2000). Facts gained from the research show that, the theory might lead to erroneous conclusions about empowerment, which proves the theory works for the individual. There is a core need according to Rappaport and Seidman to demeanor additional research that will shift the understanding of organizational and individual empowerment beyond the individual bias of psychology. Rappaport & Seidman (2000). There are chances that the empowerment theory might also face a bias in the instance where it inadvertently suggests that the concepts of control and participation favor the Western standards of decision making. This creates a flawed assumption because the definition of the empowerment theory concepts depends on the environment, context, or situation of an individual.
Zimmerman, in his 1995 studies highlights that, as stated by Rappaport and Seidman, the theory indicates the fact that empowerment is an open-ended construct that a single operation cannot fully capture. The reason is that the empowerment theory’s nature assumes different forms in different contexts and time durations (Rappaport & Seidman, 2000). The empowerment theory provides a conceptual framework for understanding the organizational or individual processes and outcomes associated with aligning fundamental operations to ideas of society and community.
References
Cyert, R., & March, J. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Davis, P, Kulick, J, & Egner, M. (2005). Implications of modern decision science for military decision support systems. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation Press.
Handel, M.J. (Ed) (2003) The sociology of organizations: Classic, contemporary and critical readings. Thousand Oaks, CA: California: Sage Publications.
March, J.G., & Heath, C. (1994). A Primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York, NY: Free Press.
McCauley, C. (1989). The Nature of social influence in groupthink: Compliance and internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 250-260.
Rappaport, A. (1975). Information for decision making: Quantitative and behavioral dimensions. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Rappaport, J., & Seidman, E. (2000). Handbook of community psychology. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.