Decision making is described as the process of choosing which action to take when there are a number of alternatives to consider. Wise decisions should always be made so as to achieve best results from the decisions made (Van & Schein, 1979). However, it should be noted that an individual may find it easier than a group of people to make decisions. Members of a group should always consult with one another before making any final decision and in some cases this process may take longer than expected. Group decision making processes sometimes become difficult when some group members do not agree with others on what should be done. Even though there are some challenges that may be experienced in decision making, sound decision making is very important for individuals or groups in organizations (Sternberg, Forsythe & Hedlund, 2000).
Decision making process in an organization is usually affected by a number of factors but the most common factors that affect decision making in many organizations are politics and power. If an individual can tell another person or a group of people to perform a certain task and the task is performed as directed, then the individual is said to have powers (Luen, & Al-Hawamdeh, 2001). Members of most organizations do not have the same powers because the top management team members are considered more powerful than other members in the lower ranks. In a well managed organization all workers are expected to respect and take orders from their supervisors. In such a situation, the supervisor can control the behaviors of other workers and thus has more powers in the organization that also can be used in influencing the decision making process (Luen, & Al-Hawamdeh, 2001). For example, a supervisor who has a formal training in a certain field may greatly influence a decision making process within an organization because the junior staff members believe their senior has more knowledge of what is supposed to be done. This type of power is known as expert power that makes most people to follow decisions made by their supervisors who are experts in relevant fields (Taormina, 1997).
Rational persuasion power is another form of power exercised by leaders in organizations who want things to be done in certain ways. They have to explain why some actions should be performed and even go ahead to explain how certain outcomes can be achieved when the actions are performed (Taormina, 1997). When a leader can demonstrate adequately how actions should be performed by the subordinate members of staff, the leader is likely to be honored and thus build a personal power. A person who has built personal power and gained trust from other people can easily influence decision making process in a group because other group members can easily agree with what the person says especially after a relevant explanation of an action to be undertaken has been offered.
Rational persuasion power was being used by a supervisor in a certain non-governmental organization (NGO) that was involved in improving the living standards of people living in rural areas in our country. I was one of the staff members of the organization and I can recall how our supervisor was using rational persuasion power to influence the decision making processes within the organization. John was the supervisor of our group that was responsible for ensuring that the people in that particular rural area involved themselves in activities that could improve their lives both socially and economically. John had a bachelor’s degree in economics and a master’s degree in business management. He could explain economic scenarios more than any other person in the group and even though most of us in the group were experts in business, John was considered to have more knowledge of business more than us.
We started our project by educating the residents of the area on the need of starting micro businesses so as to improve their living standards. During the process of educating the residents, we realized that the residents were willing to start small business ventures but they had no funds for starting the businesses. In addition, they did not like to borrow loans from banks because they were claiming that the interest rates that banks charged were very high and in some cases when the businesses collapsed the banks were likely to auction their properties so as to recover the money that were borrowed. We could learn all these from the residents because after every teaching session, we were giving them chances to ask questions and even speak of the problems they were experiencing.
After two weeks the teaching stage was over, we converged to give reports before moving to the next stage. The stages were to be followed sequentially and every task was supposed to be completed within specified periods. This implied that if an extra stage was to be included, the project could take longer than expected and the allocated resources could not be adequate to complete the project. Therefore, it was necessary to have wide consultation before making any decision that could affect the duration of completing the project and the available resources for the project. After we presented our reports on the first stage of the project, John explained to us the importance of educating the residents how banks offer loans and charge interest rates. He also told us to encourage the residents to take loans and invest in viable businesses without much fear of risks because good business people must be ready to take risks but at the same time put in place proper risk management measures. John decided that we should not proceed to the next stage as earlier planned but we should embark on teaching the residents how to apply, acquire, and put loans in viable investments. From John’s explanations, we all accepted the decision by John and considered it worthwhile. The project proceeded well until completion even though the completion date was extended a little bit after John had negotiated with other stakeholders to extend the completion date. John used rational persuasion power to make the decisions. This case clearly shows that power can influence the decision making process in an organization.
Politics is also a major factor that influences decision making processes in most organizations. Politics in organizations simply mean that leaders in organizations use their powers to make decisions when there are more interests or opinions from other members of the organizations. Organizational politics also can be described as the management of influence by an individual or a group of individuals to make sure that certain things are done using the means that are not sanctioned by the organization. In addition, organizational politics can be described to mean a way of making appropriate decisions so as to ensure proper functioning of organizations after evaluating different self-interests of people within the organizations and coming up with collective interests (Van & Schein, 1979).
When members of an organization involve themselves in constructive organizational politics, the organization can easily achieve its objectives. Constructive politics mean that every individual is ready and willing to discuss issues with other members within the organization with open mind but not giving self-interest the first priority. This is the only way in which individuals can arrive at a collective interest. On the other hand, bad organizational politics can lead to making of wrong decisions in organizations (Van & Schein, 1979). When sound decisions are not made for management of an organization, it is obvious that the organization cannot achieve its objectives and instead more problems may be created in the organization. Politics and power are related and if a leader abuses power to influence the organizational politics, the decision making process can be negatively affected.
I was studying in a certain university where the chief executive officer was the vice chancellor. The position of a chancellor was a ceremonial one in the sense that the chancellor was out of the learning institution most of the time and most of the responsibilities were left to the vice chancellor. It was not that our chancellor was lazy or irresponsible but this was how universities were being managed in that country. Major decisions were being made by the university senate that included the vice chancellor. Some university senate members were not lecturers and they were not spending most of their times within the university. Therefore, before senate meetings took place E-mails were sent to all the senate members notifying them dates and agenda of meetings. In some cases the members were contacted using cell phones. After various decisions had been made, they were posted on the university website so as to be accessed by the students and the public. There were some links within the university website that could be could be accessed only by the university staff members and students using their respective passwords. This implied that there was the use of modern information technology to enhance communication within the university and hence facilitate decision making processes.
The vice chancellor at one point used wrong organizational politics to make a decision that was unsuccessful. The chancellor and a few members of the university management staff decided to shorten the semester without consulting the students and other university staff members. The students learned of the decision when it was posted on the university website. The students protested against the decision but the vice chancellor insisted that his decision was final. This led to a serious riot by the students which forced the university management to close up the university. The vice chancellor had given his self-interest the first priority and used bad politics to make the decision that was unsuccessful. The vice-chancellor’s decision was later reversed by the university senate before the students were recalled to the institution.
People usually make decisions on different issues depending on the information they have about the issues. Organizations should therefore make good use of modern information technologies to create channels of communication so as stakeholders can access relevant information before making sound decisions (Taormina, 1997). The riot could not have occurred in the university if there were good communication channels between the students and the university management. The cases described above clearly show that power and organizational politics are major factors that influence decision making in organizations.
Reference List
Luen, W. & Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2001). Knowledge management in the public sector: Principles and practices in police work. Journal of Information Science, 27(5):311–318.
Sternberg, L., Forsythe, B. & Hedlund, J. (2000). Practical Intelligence in Everyday Life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taormina, J. (1997). Organizational socialization: A multi-domain, continuous process model. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 5(1): 29–47.
Van, J. & Schein, E. (1979). Towards a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior 1: 209–264.