HOME | GALLERY | ABOUT US

COPYRIGHT 2008 LOVELYWENGJOAN. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
 

QUALITY OF DECISION MAKING and Paradox of Choice

page 1 of 1

 

Some managers and businesses make better decisions than others. Good decision-making comes from:

1. Training of managers in decision-making skills. See Developing Managers

2. Good information in the first place.

3. Management skills in analysing information and handling its shortcomings.

4. Experience and natural ability in decision-making.

5. Risk and attitudes to risk.

6. Human factors. People are people. Emotional responses come before rational responses, and it is very difficult to get people to make rational decisions about things they feel very strongly about. Rivalries and vested interests also come into it. People simply take different views on the same facts, and people also simply make mistakes. Business Thinkers -John Pierpoint Morgan & Good Management Self-Assessment.

 

Paradox of choice

Observed in many cases is the paradox that more choices may lead to a poorer decision or a failure to make a decision at all. It is sometimes theorized to be caused by analysis paralysis, real or perceived, or perhaps from rational ignorance. A number of researchers including Sheena S. Iyengar and Mark R. Lepper have published studies on this phenomenon. (Goode, 2001) A popularization of this analysis was done by Barry Schwartz in his 2004 book, The Paradox of Choice.

Abilene paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
The Abilene paradox is a paradox in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of any of the individuals in the group. It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's and do not raise objections.
It was observed by management expert Jerry B. Harvey in his article The Abilene Paradox and other Meditations on Management.[1] The name of the phenomenon comes from an anecdote in the article which Harvey uses to elucidate the paradox:


"On a hot afternoon visiting in Coleman, Texas, the family is comfortably playing dominoes on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests that they take a trip to Abilene [53 miles north] for dinner. The wife says, "Sounds like a great idea." The husband, despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinks that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group and says, "Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go." The mother-in-law then says, "Of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time."
The drive is hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted.
One of them dishonestly says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it." The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic. The husband says, "I wasn't delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you." The wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored.
The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip which none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably, but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon. "

 

 
page1 of 1