Managing under Uncertainty - Japan Exchange Teaching Program - Case Study Example

Managing under uncertainty Name Institution Introduction Making effective decisions under the circumstances of uncertainty entails the capacity to identify the risks, create strategies for action, as well as to coordinate in the hope of bringing an incident under control (Comfort & Wukich, 2013). The concepts of uncertainty and probability occupy a significant position while making decisions. Indeed, in a typical decision-making process, there have to be facts. However, decisions will often be made under uncertainty. At this rate, probability comes into the process as a substitute for certainty (Lattimore & Witte, 2009). The theoretical models and perspectives for making decisions under uncertainty, such as sociological perspective, psychology perspective and lastly Personality and value-based perspective, could be applied in this scenario. The three could help identify the variable that could be manipulated to minimise errors in making decisions. The selected character from the case study is Kelly. Two fundamental decisions Kelly made that form the backbone of the entire case study are analysed. The first critical decisions considered include Kelly’s decision to apply for the Japan Exchange Teaching (JET) Program. The second includes Kelly’s decision to contact CLAIR in order to make a complaint regarding Mr Higashi’s decision that she should sign for “paid leave” rather than “sick leave,’ despite being entitled to ‘sick leave” by JET contract. Analysis The selected character from the case study is Kelly. The critical decisions considered included her decision to apply for the Japan Exchange Teaching (JET) Program. She made the decision based on a sociological perspective -- in particular Group Polarisation model. Her decision is based on the Group Polarisation (Choice shift) model, which describes the propensity for a group to increase the level of their inclinations, which makes them to be more ready to take risky alternatives (Friedkin & Johnsen, 2011). For instance, she was told by some of her friends that applying for the program was easy, and acceptance was easy too. Most of these friends influenced her decision once they reached a consensus that it was a great way to make money. It was also based on psychological perspective. Kelly believed that having lived in Japan provided her with an added advantage, and that her knowledge of Japanese language increased her chances of acceptance. She also believed that the opportunity to work in Japan would improve her knowledge of Japan. She also believed she would be able to make money and enjoy associated benefits like fun. The decision to select Assistant Language Teacher (ALT) could also be analysed based on the psychology perspective. Within this context, and based on his choice of the program to take, it is clear that the theory of Risky Choice Framing explains the procedure by which she made the decision to select the Assistant Language Teacher (ALT) programme. As Mandel (2013) explains, the theory is concerned with the tendency for people to select choices that are more certain, or risk averse, than the riskier ones. It explains a situation where people tend to give preference to the things they are sure about over the gamble (to avoid risks) when the outcomes are certain to be positive, and reject the things they are sure about in favour of the ones they are not certain about when they perceive outcomes to be negative. The evidence provided in the case study supplies sufficient evidence showing that Kelly was also prone to the “framing effect.” Indeed, before she selected a program, Kelly scrutinised the JET. Two options were available to her: the Assistant Language Teacher (ALT) and the coordinator for international relations (CIR). CIR had initially appealed to Kelly, as she only needed to have functional knowledge of Japanese to qualify. Conversely, those applying for ALTs were not conditioned to know the Japanese language. However, she believed that she had higher chances of joining the JET program is she applied for the ALT, since nearly 600 ALTs had to be recruited into the programmer, compared to CIR’s target of 25. Indeed, at the outset, she was a little upset by the decision, although she convinced herself that since the only benefits she targeted were to perfect her Japanese, then any option would be fitting. Ultimately, she ended up being selected for the ALT option. The social perspective also explains Kelly’s decision-making. Kelly’s decision to contact CLAIR was driven by Mr Higashi’s decision that she should sign for “paid leave” rather than “sick leave,’ despite being entitled to ‘sick leave” by JET contract. In particular, she felt close to Suzanne, since they had been orientated together in Tokyo. She also felt closer to Mark, as they were in the same program. In particular, it could be reasoned that both Mark and Suzanne influenced her decision. However, Andrea is far from the equation as she attempted to dissuade Kelly from involving CLAIR, by stating that she could aggravate the situation and lead people to lose face. However, Kelly had made up her mind. She drew agenda from her desk and began searching for CLAIR’s telephone number. This shows she had made up her mind. At the same time, it could be reasoned that the decision may have been influenced by Personality and value-based perspective. The value based perspective outline the fundamental assumptions of a particular mode of conduct or even socially preferable conducts that are direct opposite of other cultures. According to Hall et al (2003), the Value-Based Decision-Making (VBDM) model suggests that a decision may be achieved through multiple perspectives once the individual values are taken into consideration. In the case study, attempts by Higashi to influence persuade Kelly to change her perspective regarding the Japanese perceptions of sick leave and paid leave appear to have fallen on deaf ear given the response she received from Kelly. Kelly had replied that it was fine for the Japanese employees not to value holidays, and that since she was not Japanese, she had to be allowed to do things the Canadian way. In using Value-Based Decision-Making (VBDM) model, the most important values to a group are first identified, along with the beliefs, perceptions, and behaviours supporting these values. Hence, a decision-maker attempts to give his values, or group values, a priority. In the case study, Higashi’s decision reflected the Japanese values, something that Kelly was highly critical. Indeed, Kelly attempted to give her personal values, as well as that of his origin (country) a priority. Strengths and Weaknesses of The Decisions The key disadvantage of Risky Choice Framing is that when Kelly is faced with conflicting answers, she will become puzzled and rendered incapable of making decisions. The reason for this is that the commonest outcome of the decision-making process is that she has more prone to engage select the program once she has examined the disadvantages of not engaging and the advantages of engaging in other programmes. Its key advantage, however, is that Kelly is able to avert the risks of not being selected for the programme. Gonzalez et al (2004) explain that framing effects happen once a subject makes varied choice rooted in whether similar outcomes are expressed as if they are gains as opposed to as though they are losses. However, while framing appears to avoid bias, it tends to present facts, although implied in a manner that provides an inaccurate impression, or one distorted to lean towards a particular viewpoint (Druckman & McDermott, 2008). Usually, they can be challenging when there is uncertain conditions that make it difficult to forestall the implications of events clearly. It also makes it difficult to determine how people the most effective decisions. At any rate, it also assists in explaining the choice of an alternative that fails to encourage the greatest possible values. It also effectively shows how are assessed, in the events that the alternatives available do not differ substantially in respect to their values. Value-Based Decision-Making (VBDM) model, Kelly is more capable of making an effective decision after she has carefully reviewed her values and that of her group, as well as the factors associated with ensuring the values are upheld. However, its underlying weaknesses is that it may lead to bias and stereotypes, where Kelly is tempted to see Canadian values as being much more effective and superior to the Japanese values. Again, while it may be reasonable to assume or expect that Kelly would learn Japanese values through her experience in Japan that their heuristic judgments are inappropriate and that her decisions would compel them to take a corrective action, empirical evidence does not support such an assumption. According to Lattimore and Witte (2009), since the task structures always remain unidentified and individuals usually act in a manner that precludes learning, it remains unlikely that they will make appropriate adjustments to how their actions of how they behave. Again, making a decision based on Value-Based Decision-Making has Kelly her to form subjective probabilities. This would be affected by whether a situation is indeed gamble or one in which she can actually exert some level of control. However, empirical evidence shows that the people do not have statistical intuition to estimate accurately mathematical probability to make the right decisions based on probability. Recommendations Recommended actions entail developing skills for decision-making in the event of uncertainty. The first recommendation relates to cognition. The initial step in developing the capacity to identify risks is for Kelly to develop a comprehensive understanding of her Japanese environment or context, as well as the people within her environment (including the accountant and Mr Higashi) and what compels them to behave in the manner they are behaving. This recommendation is consistent with the Attribution theory, which seeks to explain how people are likely to interpret events in addition to how it correlates to how they think and behave. The Attribution theory, as Malle (2011) explains, is based on the assumption that individuals will attempt to find out why people behave in a manner they behave. For instance, when Kelly gets to understand why Higashi behaves in a manner he behaves, such as insisting that the accountant should fill in “paid leave” rather than “sick leave,” she is likely to understand that what causes him to behave so is more contextual. Developing such an understanding would enable her to dissociate from the groupthinking perspective of Mark and Suzanne. Malle (2011) suggests three stages for Attribution theory. In the first stage, an individual (in this case Kelly) has to observe or even perceive the behaviours (in this case of the Japanese as she had come to Japan to learn). Second, the individual (Kelly) has to convince herself that the behaviour (in this case of the accountant and Higashi to insist that she should sign for ‘paid leave’) was performed intentionally. Third, the individual (Kelly) has to determine whether if they are convinced that the other individual was forced to perform a certain behaviour (for instance, that the cause of Higashi’s behaviour is attributed to the circumstances and cultures in Japan) or not (such as whether the cause is instead attributed to his personality or behaviours rather than the cultural and social context). Indeed, if Kelly goes through the three suggested stages, she is likely to stop blaming Higashi for his decisions and instead focus on what brought her to Japan – to learn Japanese language and cultures. Kelly should also learn to communicate the risks to her group. What this means is that identifying the risks of her decision is not enough, she need to communicate the risks of her decision to Mark, Suzanne and Andrea, as well as to the agencies that share the same risk. However, this would demand that she also develops the ability to create shared meanings with the Mark, Suzanne and Andrea, as well as to the ALT, where she works as this will allow them to also take the right actions that can minimise their own risks, as well as come up with timely responses that consider everyone’s needs. Indeed, Druckman & McDermott (2008) explain that understanding the real risks of taking certain actions would allow them to take the right actions that enable them to minimise their own risks or even take the right actions that are consistent with the communities they operate. Ultimately, this would enable them to avoid putting the entire organisation, including Higashi’s career, into jeopardy. Eventually, this would enable them to link vulnerability and risks to the right actions that can reduce risks. References Comfort, L. & Wukich, C. (2013). Developing Decision-Making Skills for Uncertain Conditions: The Challenge of Educating Effective Emergency Managers. Journal of Public Affairs Education 19(1), 53–71 Druckman, J. & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the Framing of Risky Choice. Political Behavior 30, 297–321 Friedkin, N. & Johnsen, E. (2011). Social Influence Network Theory: A Sociological Examination of Small Group Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Gonzalez, C., Dana, J., Koshino, H., & Just, M. (2004). The framing effect and risky decisions: Examining cognitive functions with fMRI. Journal of Economic Psychology 26(9), 1–20 Hall, D., Guo, Y. & Davis, R. (2003). Developing a Value-Based Decision-Making Model for Inquiring Organizations. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003 Lattimore, P. & Witte, A. (2009). Models of Decision Making Under Uncertainty: The Criminal Choice. Retrieved from: Malle, B. (2011). Attribution Theories: How People Make Sense of Behavior. Retrieved from: Mandel, D. (2013). Do Framing Effects Reveal Irrational Choice? Journal of Experimental Psychology 1(1), 1-14 Read More