Decision making
Article Type: Case study From: Library Management, Volume 30, Issue 6/7
Case background
Our first case looks at decision making. Napoleon is reputed to have said,“Nothing is more difficult and therefore more precious than the ability to decide”. Whether he said this or not does not change the fact the sentiment is accurate. Rogers and Blenko (2006) wrote that “Decisions are the coin of the realm … every success, every mishap; every opportunity sized or missed is the result of a decision someone made or failed to make” (p. 52). We all make decisions both on and off the job. We also develop a personal approach to both decision making and problem solving. A significant factor in your professional career is how well you handle problem analysis, problem solving, and decision making.
Unpredictability and uncertainly surrounds most job related decisions. There is also an accountability factor, which means a person has to assume some degree of risk with each decision. Throughout life we develop a “risk tolerance”which varies over time and our experiences with the risks taken. For some individuals risk taking is something to avoid if at all possible and they often become almost paralyzed when it comes to acting.
Accountability is a part of managerial life. Someone ought to be accountable for decisions – both the good ones as well as the bad. It is also the reason why committees are not always the best method for making a decision– who is accountable in such cases? One example of the problems associated with group decision making took place some years ago in California. California has a three-tier higher education system – the University of California system (UC, with ten campuses state-wide), the California State University system (23 campuses), and the California Community College system (110 campuses,these are two year vocational and transfer program institutions). As the most selective of the three systems (only between 10-15 percent of the applicants are admitted), the UCs’ admission policies are of significant interest to many people in the state. Therefore, it established a state-wide committee to identify what high school courses are acceptable for admission purposes. When the press announced that journalism, speech, and drama courses were no longer acceptable, there was an outcry from high schools, parents, and even some UC faculty members. The committee became a group of accused, bemused, and somewhat embarrassed “decision makers” who all denied ever making such a decision. Nevertheless, the minutes of the committee indicated such a decision had been made. It probably is not a good idea to use a committee when accountability is required.
Thinking about risk taking/ambiguity/conflict tolerance levels as a continuum helps one assess personal and staff levels of comfort with making decisions.(The continuum also helps in assessing such things as resistance to change,conflict management, and planning for example.) At one end of the scale is“flight”, at the opposite end is “fight” with a midpoint of “flow”.
Individuals at the flight end of the continuum avoid risk, confrontation, and change as much as they can. Everyone, at times, faces a situation when flight is undoubtedly the best action to take. However, one should not become like Linus in the Peanuts cartoon where he said, “This is a distinct philosophy of mine. No problem is so big or complicated that it can’t be run away from.” In the organizational setting, as far as decision making is concerned, a typical “flight” behavior is procrastination. How often have you heard, “We are still waiting for a decision”, with regard to a problematic issue? Although it is not always the case, a high percentage of the time the “wait” is in fact decision avoidance in action. “Needing additional information” can also be an avoidance mechanism while not appearing so. Occasionally, a decision making situation will pass without the need to decide; however, they are very rare organizationally. More often than not, some decision is better than no decision.
Fight inclined individuals see opportunities/challenges in change and decision making. They have confidence in their skills, accept occasional mistakes as unfortunate but natural outcomes of the processes and are quick to move on when mistakes happen. Risk taking and ambiguity are not things they worry much about. Working for such people can be rewarding/exciting as well as frustrating/unsettling. At its most extreme (“gut” decisions), the results are spectacular – both successes and failures.
Most people are somewhere in between the extremes and move toward one end or the other based on recent experiences. They also tend to shift along the continuum more frequently than do individuals at the extremes. Essentially, they flow with events. They do assess risk, have a concern about ambiguity, know mistakes will happen and do their best to balance all the factors.
One of two major influences on a person’s organizational decision making style is risk and ambiguity tolerance. The other factor is one’s “value”orientation. That is, how much importance a person places on task/technical issues vs. people/social issues. Like risk/ambiguity, there is a value continuum. It is possible to think of the two factors as akin to the “managerial grid”, well known in terms of management style (see Figure 1). One axis of the grid would represent tolerance of risk/ambiguity and other would be task and people. One corner (lower left) of the grid would be low risk/low task (say 1.1), another (lower right) would be low risk/high task (1.5), a third corner(upper left) would be high risk/low task (5.1) and the final corner (upper right) high risk/high task (5.5). Individuals who fall at the mid-point of both scales (3.3) would be considered moderate risk/moderate task.
Most individual’s employ several styles; adjusting the style to the circumstances at hand. Organizational culture is a factor in a person’s decision making style. (Niels Ole Pors’ article, listed in the Further Readings below, provides an excellent overview of the nature and importance of organizational culture.) Organizational culture influences both of the broad types of decision that occur in the workplace – programmed and non-programmed. Even the programmed decisions (routine/regularly occurring decisions – scheduling staff and collection development decisions are examples) are affected by the general work culture. The real decision challenges arise from the non-programmed situations – rare, high risk, and unstructured in the sense that the decision maker may not have faced the situation before. These are the situations where past personal experiences can have a major impact on what is selected as the best course of action. The Rogers and Blenko article quoted above provides some useful insights into how to approach non-programmed decision making1.
Case 1 – decisions decisions
On a beautiful late spring morning Ann Baxter sat at one the tables outside the “Late for the Train” coffee bar enjoying her large latte and almond biscotti when her cell phone sounded. That sound transformed her enjoyable random thoughts into one of dread and worry. She’d taken a“mental health day” off from her position as the most junior member of the library-archives staff at the Center for Regional Environmental Studies(a private think-tank consulting firm).
Spending a day window-shopping, with one or two small purchases, along with a very nice leisurely lunch had seemed like just the medicine she needed to cure her work worries. Now she was almost certain this call would bring those worries back into sharp focus, if she picked it up. Perhaps she should just let it go into voicemail.
She did not really need to look at her caller ID to know the caller was Lillian Kessell. Lillian and her friend, Margaret Varner, were partners in an information services business. Three years earlier Ann, Lillian, and Margaret had been classmates at Livingston Graduate School of Library and Information Studies. They had formed a friendship that survived graduation and while Ann had hoped it would be lifelong, it might change somewhat depending on a decision she had to make. In a way, Lillian and Margaret had become her mothers/mentors in part because of their substantial age differences and prior work experience. Unlike Ann, Lillian and Margaret were both married with families and both had extensive work experience prior to going back to school after their children were in high school and college.
Lillian and Margaret had been long-time friends. Lillian had worked “solo”in a small engineering firm, bringing order to its collection of documents and journals as well as conducting online searches for the engineers. Margaret had worked as “librarian” in her husband’s small law firm. Some years earlier, they had decided they would like to start a small information service business and realized they should go back to school to have the appropriate credentials to call themselves “information professionals.”In school, they divided up the elective courses they thought they needed to carry out their plan. When they learned Ann had an undergraduate degree in biology and environmental studies, they tried to recruit Ann to their fledgling company. They planned to have Kessell & Varner Information Services specialize in legal and scientific services.
For Ann, the idea of going into such a business had been both exciting and terrifying. Her family background was one of wishing for financial security rather than having it. When it had come time to start job hunting she really did not think very long about the offer to join Kessell & Varner. Instead she opted for the safer route – work where someone else had to worry about where the money came from. With her science background and glowing recommendations from her instructors, she was soon weighing competing offers. Her final choice was between an academic library seeking another science librarian and an offer from the Center. After much soul searching and conversations with classmates and instructors, she went with the Center’s offer – mainly because their salary was more than a quarter higher than the University’s and at the Center she would have an opportunity to work with environmental issues.
Why then was she having something like an anxiety attack over a phone call from a very good friend? She knew Lillian and Margaret were concerned about her current work situation and wanted to help.
As sometimes happens in life, the fickle finger of fate had, or at least seemed to be about to, jump up and bite Ann. After two-and-a-half wonderful years in her job, “word” began circulating on the Center’s grape-vine that major financial troubles were on its near horizon. “The Word” was that two grants that supplied more than 40 percent of the Center’s operating budget would not be renewed. Further, the Center’s primary private donor had suffered substantial loses in his latest business deals and he would not be likely to give any meaningful gifts for several years. Naturally,people were speculating how many jobs would have to go – not if, but how many. Estimates ranged from closure of the Center to layoffs of just a few people – talk was it would be the most recent hires and those in support roles that would be the first to go. Ann fit into both categories. It was all speculation but extremely worrisome nonetheless.
Ann had shared the “news” with her two friends, who said, “Don’t worry you can join us. We’ve always want you with us. In fact, we were just talking about advertising at the school for someone. Business is really good. We can find support people but what we need is another professional – both of us are having trouble keeping up with the work. We don’t want to lose customers because we can’t get something done in a timely fashion. The work is demanding but lots of fun because you never know what will happen next. You sort of get used to customers wanting everything right now.
“You can even become a partner, if you would like to invest something. You could pay in your contribution from your salary over several years. Not a problem. We’d really, really want you join us.”
It was a gratifying offer; however, there was a catch. They said they needed an answer very soon and they would start advertising immediately if she said no. Thus her anxiousness about the incoming call – perhaps it was someone else– but she doubted it could be anyone but Lillian. She had hoped they might be willing to wait a couple of more weeks even though she’d put them off once already. There was no official word about the Center’s prospects beyond an announcement that one grant was not being renewed, but given the amount of talking going on it seemed unlikely that “management” would have much good news to share. “They” had to know people were talking and few people said they were putting out “feelers” about job openings and dusting off their CVs.
Ann sighed deeply. Maybe things were not really that bad. Maybe she should wait for definite information about the Center’s situation. On the other hand, this was a firm job opportunity that would be there for too long. Still,what did she really know about Kessell & Varner? Really not much beyond her two friends owned it.
What to do, how to decide? Everything was so uncertain. And, the phone kept ringing.
Questions to ponder
What information should Ann collect to help make a decision? From the Center? From Lillian and Margaret?
What might be some advantages and disadvantages of taking Lillian’s offer? Of rejecting the offer and staying at the Center?
What might she have done or could do to clarify her place at the Center?
What might she do regarding her tolerance for risk?
A journal that is worthwhile checking on a few times a year is Management Decision.
G. Edward Evans
