At any stage in the socialisation of an idea, there comes a time where decisions need to be taken. Will the idea be progressed through the organisation, will it be passed through to embodiment, or possibly regarded as of little benefit, and so passed to discard? It is crucial for both the innovator and the business to understand how and why decisions are made as they pass through the socialisation process.
Critically, that the task of decision making can be viewed in terms of the Espoused and in-use models described earlier. Research by Herbert Simon raised these key points about the decision making process:
 |
People normally act on the basis of incomplete information about the sources of the data, and the choices they can make. |
|
People find it difficult to truly explore the potential solutions and options for a situation. |
|
The values that people attach to a decision will be limited and driven by their personal association and meaning. |
Simon offers the view that at best organisations can only achieve a limited degree of rationality. So although people and teams might believe that they have taken decisions that are grounded in rationality and hard facts, the truth is that they have only taken a decision within a ‘bounded rationality’. In essence, to have taken a decision that is good enough based upon the limited search and analysis options that were open to them. This conclusion was supported by Janis and Mann,[ii] where they argue that people tend to take the easy way out and read only limited sources of information, particularly those that align with their personal views. One of the outcomes of this is that when taking decisions, there is a tendency to follow what the perceived ‘expert’ in a subject area proposes.
Coupled with this, many of the ideas put forward about the nature of self-organising systems raise further questions about the nature of decision-making. If one accepts that organisations are driven partially by the ideas of non-linear, spontaneous, and random processes, then the following questions might be considered:
|
If the long-term outcome is not known, by what criteria should a decision be taken? |
|
With a high degree of mobility how can corporate responsibility be attached to a decision, so that accountability is established? |
|
If the future cannot be known, of what use are financial tools such as discounted cash flow, in the analysis phase? |
|
Given the role that political systems play, what emphasis should be given to political factors when trying to take a rational decision? |
|
Given that an organisation will use its feedback system as a regulating tool, what regulatory process will be triggered in response to a decision? |
So, the socialisation process can be viewed according to two dimensions. The first is the extent to which decisions are taken according to the Espoused or In-Use process. For the Espoused approach, decision-making will be clearly set out in the organisational procedures. For the ‘In-use’ approach, decision-making will be undertaken in a way that suits the people taking the decision and will not be grounded in rules and procedures. For the linear organisation the decisions will be taken on the assumption that the forecast outcomes are achievable, if the non-linear outcomes are assumed as the natural operating style, the decision will be taken on a very short-term basis.
Drawing together these themes, four styles of decision making might be observed.
|
The formal decision making is very tight, controlled, and clear regarding the process and anticipated outcomes. The expectation is that the process would be very well project managed and documented, but might be unable to cope with decisions that require a quick turn-around, or deal with something outside the main stream of work. |
|
Here the factual approach is still very structured but there is a greater sense of reality about the approach. There is a willingness to deal with decisions in a pragmatic way rather than being hidebound by the tradition of rules. However, even though there is a greater degree of flexibility and openness, the assumption is still that any agreed outcome or plans are deliverable irrespective of changes in the environment. |
|
The flexible approach is grounded in the idea that procedures and rules have been developed but they exist to help manage the process at hand, not to contain the decision against future goals. There is a sense that even if a decision is taken, it can be changed and improved at a later date, according to how the environment changes. |
|
In the fortuitous domain the assumption is that decision making is both flexible and realistic. The decision will be taken based upon today’s knowledge, and on the assumption that taking a decision does not mean that it is locked in stone. The decision process is one that is adaptable and responsive to the people and environment needs, and is not in place to constrain the action in any way. It might, however, appear slightly chaotic and risky to people who are looking for a stable process, and might appear frightening to stakeholders who were not used to the turbulent style. |
Although the four quadrants offer a view of some different approaches to decision making, they are not offered as the decision making options. Decision-making is a human process, and as such will be full of inconsistencies, confusion, power plays, and problems. As such, it might be foolish to frame a model that can predict how the socialisation process might truly facilitate decision-making, however, it can help organisation to develop a view of the way that decisions are taken within the business.
(c) Mick Cope