The managerial grid was first introduced in 1962 by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in the journal of American society of training directors. There are two sides to the grid where one deals with production while the other deals with people. The sides, axis, or dimension are delineated on a scale of 1 to 9. With 1 being the lowest concern while 9 being the highest concern. The combination of the two dimensions brings about a total of five key management styles.
The numbers associated with any particular style denote whether the management style is production people-oriented. Production-oriented style such as 9, 1 is particularly concerned with the needs of the organization and is least concerned with the needs of people within such an organization. This style is also known as Authority-Obedience places emphasis on an efficient arrangement of work conditions to ensure that people do not interfere with organizations’ operations (March 2011). Apparently, 9, 1 style is authoritarian in nature while 1, 1 denotes laissez-faire leaders who exercise minimum interference within an organization. This style is also known as impoverished management which is keen on retaining an organizations membership. It requires that leaders exert minimum effort to get the required work done. 5, 5 denote leaders who are inclined towards democracy. It is also known as organization man management. It places emphasis on retaining people morale so as to enhance an organization performance. The interests of an organization and those of people working within it are at par.
The country club management style or 1, 9 is more concerned with peoples needs. It places emphasis on relationship building thereby retaining a friendly work environment and work tempo. Finally, the 9, 9 or team management style fosters relationships of trust and respect within an organization. This is because the people working within the organization are committed towards work since they have a sense of common purpose.
The decision making theory consists of three major decision making models. These include; the rational model, the incremental model and the heuristic model. The rational model presumes that a person will act in a rational manner when faced with crises requiring decisions to be made. It is presumed that the person (i) is fully aware of all the available alternatives, (ii) the person can order preferences inline with his or her values and (iii) that such a person is competent enough to select the best alternative available (Charles etal, 2012). The prospect of making more money offers people the incentive to work hard according to the traditional theory of management. The decision maker utilizes money to measure value. Nonetheless, this assumption does not hold water in real life since factors such as personality, mental health; emotions, power group dynamics and politics come into play during the process of decision making.
The incremental model is based on the premise that the decision making process is not only complicated but also fragmented. Different institutions, pressure groups, political entities and individual prejudices interact in a manner that eventually minimizes the effect of rationality. For instance, police administrators may find it difficult to achieve a truly rational decision where a local mayor has the intentions of being reelected. Hence, decision making is progressive and is dependent on time, circumstances and resources. Here, rationality is ineffectual, goals and objectives are ambiguous and means and ends are not distinct (Charles et al, 2012). Police administrators would rather play it safe than face the music. Hence, they tend to move slowly “incrementally” during the process of decision-making. Finally, we have the heuristic model which unlike the rational model that is external in that is based on formalized structure and calculations; this model assumes that the mechanisms of decision making are internal to the decision-maker who often relies on gut feelings based on memory and future prospects. Here, a police officer will often select decision alternative suitable for his or her basic needs, wants and desires and that will cause minimum anxiety and disruption. Normally, emotions prevail over objective decisions.
There are a number of steps and rationale that decision-makers should take when confronted with an ethical issue. The first step entails recognition of the ethical issue. This is done by establishing whether there is something wrong socially, personally, or interpersonally and whether such a situation, decision or conflict could hamper the progress of a community or its people. The issue should not be allowed to go beyond legal, cultural or institutional concerns in a manner that could violate people’s hopes for a better life, their rights and dignity.
The second step entails the scrutiny of known and unknown facts. Thirdly, the individuals and groups having important stake in the outcome should be established and necessary consultations made. Evaluation of alternative actions should follow should decision makers be faced with an ethical dilemma. Utilitarian approach would suffice in the selection of an action that would produce the most good and do the least harm (Fraedrich, 2006). The rights approach ensures that everyone’s right and dignity is respected. The option that is fair to all stakeholders is arrived at using the fairness approach. The final step involves testing the feasibility of the selected option.
References
Charles, R. S., Territo, L. & Taylor, W. R. (2012). Police Administration: Structures, Processes and Behavior, 8th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Publishing Co. Pearson.
Fraedrich, F.(2006). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and cases. New York, NY: South-Western College Pub.
March, G. (2011). Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen 5th Ed. Secaucus, NJ: Chart well Books, Inc.