Managing Under Uncertainty Methods And Applications – A Discourse On Decision Making In Groups

Discussion

Discuss about the Managing under Uncertainly Methods and Applications.

Managing under uncertainty helps to develop the introductory skills to the group member that are solely concerned with the managerial decision making process. This particular discourse will discuss the gradual development of the decision making process of every group members with a strict concentration on the critical judgment, creative problem solving methods and analytical logical reasoning. This study will explain the personality test, roles and responsibilities of the group members in accordance with ethics and politics. Bammer & Smithson (2012) have mentioned that the potential challenges of the decision making process will help the group members to undertake adequate and appropriate decisions under bounded rationality and incomplete information. On the other hand, decision making under uncertainty suggests thinking clearly, feeling confident and acting decisively in a group (Kivlighan et al., 2012). In this particular discourse, there are 4 members in the group, who will take effective part in the decision making process by employing theories of the decision making such as, casual decision theory and evidential decision theory.

The personality test MBTI takes less than 12 minutes in order to determine the type of personality of the group member. According to Moreland et al. (2013), in order to take effective and adequate decisions, personality of every group member plays an important role within the group. After the completion of MBTI test, the result reveals that member 1 is ESTJ, which suggests of holding the personality of the executive. Member 1 is the representative of order and tradition after utilizing the basic understanding of the socially acceptable and adequate things in order to bring every team member together. Member 1 embraces the actual values of dedication, dignity and honesty, as the individual with ESTJ personality type can be valued for transparent guidance and advice and selects difficult way out. Member 1 takes pride to bring people together and supports the traditional values.

Member 2 is ISTJ personality, which determines the logistician personality type. In this particular group, member 2 is the most abundant individual because of his defining characteristics of the integrity, tireless dedication and practical logic. As opined by Belbin (2012), ISTJ personality individuals enjoy taking responsibilities for the performed actions and taking pride of performances during the working process towards an established goal. Member 2 never holds energy and time for completing the tasks with appropriate patience and accuracy that are required in the group. Member 2 of this group never makes several assumptions for completing the assigned tasks and prefers to analyses the surroundings for solving any kind of critical issues.

Roles in a group

Member 3 and 4 possess ISTP personality that suggests the virtuoso or entrepreneur quality. Both member 3 and 4 prefer to explore with their creativity and innovation, which determines the spirited curiosity and rationality. As commented by Batenburg et al. (2013), ISTP personality are the natural thinkers, who possess the capability of moving from one project to another and build superfluous working environment. Member 3 and 4 explores concepts and ideas through troubleshooting, creating, first-hand experience, trial and error. Both of these members enjoy while doing the allocated tasks in the group.

Role of the team member within group test helps to check the readiness of the group member for performing tasks (Belbin, 2012). Member 1 in my group is plant, resource investigator and implementer, who use inquisitive nature for finding effective ideas in order to bring back to the group. The strength of member 1 involves its enthusiastic, outgoing nature, as this individual prefers to explore opportunities for developing further contacts. Being a plant, member 1 tends to be highly creative and excellent at solving critical problems in various unconventional ways. On the other hand, member 1 also plays the role of implementer, who makes workable and relevant strategies with practical, efficient and reliable concepts into actions. Member 2 plays the role of implementer, team worker, monitor and evaluator within a team. Being a team worker, member 1 helps the team member to gel with the other with utilizing their versatility for identifying the tasks, which are completed and required on behalf of the team. Member 2 also plays the role of monitor and evaluator in my team as he provides impartial judgments with implementing strategic, discerning and sober decisions. Member 2 is the implementer of our team, who often lacks flexibility to show immediate response to the new possibilities.

Member 3 is resource navigator, plant and team worker as he always reveals his enthusiastic nature while performing some allocated tasks. Being a team worker, he is co-operative, diplomatic and perceptive. However, member 3 is often indecisive in the critical situations and tends to ignore and avoid any kind of confrontation. Being a plant, member 3 is imaginative, creative in generating ideas and solving problems. Member 4 is team worker, implementer, monitor and evaluator. Being a monitor and evaluator, this member provides logical and impartial judgments and as an implementer, he turns effective ideas into workable actions. On the other hand, member 4 is often hesitant for making unpopular decisions.

Ethics

Group ethics have been approached for studying morality ethical theory as the moral theories help the group members to figure out the undertaking right and wrong actions during the decision making within the group. According to Saaty & Peniwati (2013), the moral theories involve utilitarianism, virtue ethics, deontology and categorical imperative ethics. Utilitarianism ethics has been strictly followed by my team member while determining the actions and decisions are right or wrong. Even with proper application of utilitarianism ethics, my team member enhances the good things and minimizes the bad aspects of the assessment of the group. Utilitarianism supports and promotes moral rightness or wrongness of every decision.

On the other hand, virtue ethics suggests maintaining the philosophical root of our assessment within our group. According to Hwang & Lin (2012), virtue ethics always claim to concern about the agents instead of consequences or the actions. Following this virtue theory, my team members have become an appropriate moral character, as they possess justice, wisdom, temperance, courage, generosity and good temper while undertaking effective decisions. On the other hand, deontology theories are solely based on the certain duties of morality and its obligations (Kacprzyk & Fedrizzi, 2012). My team member are knowledgeable regarding their wrongdoings regardless of any consequences, they have thorough discussion for finding the solution. Deontology theories also make my team member irrespective in nature and perform tasks without thinking the negative effects.

My team members adopt casual decision theory as it allows various principles of rational choice. Even my team member has selected evidential decision theory, which believes to bring out the best decision for the team. As opined by Zimmermann (2012), there are certain occasion within the group related the maintenance of ethics while taking effective and potential decisions for the betterment. Casual decision theory is a traditional theory of decision-making and it is still used only because of its nature of implication of the desired choices that can become a fruitful consequence of the taken decision by the team members. It is noteworthy to mention here that, evidential decision theory supports and promotes an irrational process of thinking (Hursthouse, 2013). My group has preferred evidential decision theory more than casual decision theory only because of its supports the innovative nature of an individual rather than the traditional way of working within the group.

There are certain contradictions within my group regarding some effective decision making. The team member should follow therefore the political theories, such as theories on justice, liberty, rights and enforcement of legal code in order to prevent any kind of contradictions or arguments within the group. It is noteworthy to mention here that, such political theories determine the freedoms, rights and responsibilities of the team members for providing own suggestions during the decision. Van Hooft (2014) has mentioned that the political theories also mitigate issues related group politics, biasness and other sensitive aspects within the group. The adopted political theories are closely interlinked with the moral theories, which evaluate and analyses the institutes, concepts, beliefs and values of the ethics in appropriate manner.

Conclusion

As every group members has completed own assignment, therefore, it is important to engage in active group work for making effective decisions regarding the process and reasons for the taken decisions. The decision is closely associated with the assigned roles and responsibilities of the group member. The decisions are always interlinked with the group operations and any kind of occurrences if there are disputes regarding the performance of allocated tasks among the group member. Motivation plays an important role for my team members as they perform own allocated tasks in proper without disturbing the other. Every team member has played own role in proper manner for achieving the ultimate success. Even the personality test MBTI helps to acknowledge the type of personality of every group member, which has made easy to take potential decisions in short period with implementing adequate and suitable strategies and ideas.

Reference

Bammer, G., & Smithson, M. (Eds.). (2012). Uncertainty and risk: multidisciplinary perspectives. Routledge.

Batenburg, R., van Walbeek, W., & in der Maur, W. (2013). Belbin role diversity and team performance: is there a relationship?. Journal of Management Development, 32(8), 901-913.

Belbin, R. M. (2012). Beyond the team. Routledge.

Belbin, R. M. (2012). Team roles at work. Routledge.

Hursthouse, R. (2013). Normative virtue ethics. ETHICA, 645 .

Hwang, C. L., & Lin, M. J. (2012). Group decision making under multiple criteria: methods and applications (Vol. 281). Springer Science & Business Media.

Kacprzyk, J., & Fedrizzi, M. (Eds.). (2012). Multiperson decision making models using fuzzy sets and ethics theory (Vol. 18). Springer Science & Business Media.

Kivlighan Jr, D. M., London, K., & Miles, J. R. (2012). Are two heads better than one? The relationship between number of group leaders and group members, and group climate and group member benefit from therapy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(1), 1.

Moreland, R. L., Levine, J. M., & Wingert, M. L. (2013). Creating the ideal group: Composition effects at work. Understanding group behavior, 2, 11-35.

Saaty, T. L., & Peniwati, K. (2013). Group decision making: drawing out and reconciling differences. RWS publications.

Van Hooft, S. (2014). Understanding virtue ethics. Routledge.

Zimmermann, H. J. (2012). Theories, decision making, and expert systems (Vol. 10). Springer Science & Business Media.