The paper 'Mechanism for Supporting Unstructured Decision-Making Processes' is a wonderful example of a Management Assignment. It has been assumed that managers are rational beings and thus, would engage in exercises that maximize returns on investment. Hodgkinson and Starbuck (2008, p. 457) note that the rational decision-making process is the ability to present alternatives and choose the feasible one. In bounded rationality, it is assumed that people (managers) are goal-oriented. In this case, the goal of the managers is to make a profit. The need to maximize profits is connected to the theories of pleasure maximization (Jones, 1999, p.
297). The non-consequentialism theories like utilitarianism encourage decision-makers to choose the options which will provide more pleasure as compared to pain (Chandra, Krovi and Rajagopalan, 2009, p. 48). In this case, the pleasure is profit maximization and the pain is the loss. Thus, a manager as the overall person who is answerable to the board based on the expectation that the role of business is to make profits must have strategies of ensuring profit maximization. This kind of argument was the initial belief in how managers made their decisions about the business process. However, this approach to decision making about profit maximization has been countered by the behavioral economists.
Hebert Simon (1993 cited in Tarter and Hoy, 1997, p. 213) notes that “ decisions are rational if they are appropriate to the accomplishment of specific objectives” . Owing to demands on human cognition, numerous unpredictable consequences, and unconscious bias among others, rationality is not easily attained on complex matters. This forces managers to find the best of the satisfactory options. Satisficing theory deviates from the optimizing strategy by encouraging the adoption of realistic satisfactory outcomes and not necessarily the best one (Tarter and Hoy, 1997, p. 214).
This is why it is common for managers to set performance objectives for employees and departments for each financial year. If this is achieved, they are likely to raise the targets and if not, based on the conditions the target might be lowered (Derek, 2005, p. 156).
Aaker. D.A., Kumar, V. And Day, G. 2001. Marketing research. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
AP Economics, 2012. Chapter 18: Elasticity. Retrieved on 28 December, 2012 from: http://www.crawfordsworld.com/rob/ape/APEMcConnellNotes/M1McConnell018.html.
Chandra, A., Krovi, R. & Rajagopalan, B. 2009. Risk Visualization: A mechanism for Supporting Unstructured decision Making Processes. The International Journal of applied management and Technology, 6(4): 48-70.
Derek, L. et al. 2005. Human resource management. London: prentice Education Limited.
Frank, R. H. 2010. Microeconomics and Behaviour, 8 Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Hodgkinson, G. P. & Starbuck, W. I. 2008. The Oxford handbook of Organizational Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jain, T. R. & Trehan, M. 2010. Macroeconomics and Indian Economy. New Delhi: V. K. Publications.
Jones, B. D. 1999. Bounded Rationality. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 297-321.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. L. 2009. Marketing management 13th edn, Upper Saddle River. New Jersey: prentice hall.
Machlup, F. 1955. Characteristics and Types of price Discrimination p.395-438, in Business Concentration and Price Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mankiw, N. G. 2009. Principles of Economic 5 Edition. Mason, OH: South-Western, Cengage Learning.
McAfee, R. P. 2008. Price Discrimination, in 1 ISSUES IN COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY 465. ABA Section of Anti Trust Law.
Onkvisit, S. and Shaw, J. J. 2008. International marketing: strategy and theory. New York: Routledge.
Tarter, C .J. & Hoy, W. K. 1998. Toward a contingency theory of decision making. Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.212-228.
The Analyst Diary, (24 August, 2008). Elasticity of demand and supplies. Retrieved on 28 December, 2012 from: http://theanalystdiary.com/?m=200808.