Managing under Uncertainty - Coursework Example

Managing Under Uncertainty Student’s Name Course Tutor’s Name Date: Introduction – The workplace situation and the decision In my first workplace experience, I was subjected to workplace bullying by my immediate supervisor. Much as I knew there was an anti-bullying policy in the workplace, I was not sure whether to report the incident to the HR department. My indecisiveness is not uncommon among young people who for the first time in their careers, are faced with a tough decision as has been noted by Foskett and Hemsley-Brown (2001). On one hand, I knew that I had rights as a worker but I was also duty-bound by the contract I had signed with my employer. On the other hand, I knew that as a novice, I probably had not understood the organisational culture well enough, and as such, I hoped that with continued stay my relations with the supervisor would get better with time. The outcomes of the decisions Three months into my new job, the supervisor had not changed his treatment towards me. He would make me handle odd jobs that were not included in my job description. I practically became a messenger to him, since I always obeyed his orders. I lagged behind in my duties, and my colleagues would begrudge me for not playing my rightful role especially in cases where teamwork was necessary. I knew I had to change the situation and so I began by re-reading the non-bullying policy at the workplace. I then made the decision to stand up to him, and explain that I was lagging behind in my duties and sometimes had to put in extra hours to cover up for the hours that I lost attending to odd jobs he had assigned me. He retorted by stating that if I was not ready to obey him, then I should be ready to lose my job for insubordination. After much thinking, I decided to file a complaint against him for workplace bullying. The HR department handled the complaint, and upon investigation, he was found culpable of the accusations I had lodged against him. Applying theories and models According to Stein and Welch (1997), cognitive psychology provides people with tools, which they use in reaction to intricate or poorly-structured dilemmas. Notably, no single cognitive theory of decision-making can explain why people process information or make the decisions they do (Oliviera, 2007). In my work experience above, several theories and frameworks can be used to explain the decisions made. These are discussed next. Attribution theory According to Oliviera (2007), attribution theory refers to a perceptual process with which an individual decides whether observed behaviours are occasioned by external or internal factors. The initial reluctance on my part to report the bully supervisor to the HR department was probably because I thought my inexperienced nature was to blame for some of the bully behaviour targeted towards me. I might have unconsciously believed that the supervisor’s behaviour was a result of my own status as a novice in the company, hence my hope that my relations with him would improve with time. As time went by however, and buoyed by the threat by him, I might have realised that the bullying behaviour was caused by something beyond my control – i.e. the supervisor. The former form of belief on my part fits into the internal attribution bias as noted by Manusov and Spitzberg (2008), while the latter fits into the external attribution bias True to the criticism levied at attribution theory, my first decision not to report the bully supervisor to the HR department was an attribution error, which was arguably based on cognitive biases and heuristics as indicated by Oliviera (2007). The first heuristic in my case can be seen in how I related ambiguous information (i.e. not knowing whether to obey the supervisor or attend my duties) to organisational culture. Although I had no prior work experience, I had theoretical knowledge about organisational culture and as such, I justified my decision not to report the supervisor with my novice status. Choice theory According to Glasser (2010), choice theory assumes that the behaviour portrayed by individuals results from their constant endeavour to satisfy any of the five needs inherent in them. The basic needs include the need to: survive, belong, gain power, be free, and have fun. According to Olver (2008), individuals have no choice when frustrated but feel pain, the same way they cannot help feeling pleasure when they are satisfied. When a person is unsatisfied, they have a continuing urge to seek satisfaction by behaving appropriately (Allingham, 2002). Applied in my context, choice theory is reflected in the above scenario when I chose not to report the bullying supervisor and when I later chose to lodge a complaint against him. In both cases, I needed to satisfy different needs. In the first instance, and as a new employee, I might have just wanted to survive and get a sense of belonging in my new place of work. I must have argued that contravening my supervisor’s orders was not one of the ways of surviving or gaining acceptance in my new job. After three months however, I must have realised that my happiness and job security were at stake and as indicated by Olver (2008), the need to gain power, be free and have fun must have taken over. Gaining freedom from the supervisor’s intimidations was perhaps one of the motivations behind my decision to lodge a complaint against him. I might also have wanted to access the powers granted to employees by the non-bullying policy. According to Glasser (2010) “people innately reject being controlled by others because they are capable of fulfilling only their own needs” (p. 47). In other words, it is dysfunctional when one loses his/her control to another person since his/her needs are not fulfilled. To remedy the dysfunctional state as indicated in choice theory, Glasser (2010) notes that a person behaves in a specific way. The four components of behaviour that people engage in include: doing, thinking, feeling, and physiology. In my context, I engaged in thinking (i.e. through reasoning what would happen if I did not report the bullying), and doing (i.e. lodging a complaint against my supervisor). The feeling component of behaviour was also present as I was angered by the threats that the supervisor targeted at me. The adaptive decision-maker framework The adaptive decision-maker framework is used in explaining how people choose between different actions and choice situations, especially when none of the available options is best on all features, qualities or attributes (Beresford & Sloper, 2008). The framework posits that choice problems can be solved through acquiring and evaluating information about alternatives and their respective attributes. According to Beresford and Sloper (2008), attributes differ depending on “their desirability to the decision-maker; the uncertainty of actually receiving the attribute value; and the willingness of the decision-maker to accept a loss on one attribute for gaining on another attribute” (p. 4). Applied in my context, aspects of the adaptive decision-maker framework are reflected in the fact that I had two choice situations: to report the bully supervisor to the HR department or to undergo bullying without reporting the same. In the first instance, I chose not to report because I was not sure what the organisational culture demanded. In the second instance, and after acquiring and evaluating information regarding the anti-bullying policy in the company, I made the choice to report the incident. I was aware that I could lose my position if indeed the supervisor made his insubordination claim against me, but I also knew I did not want to live under his threats and intimidation. The foregoing fits into the Byrnes’ (1998) observation that choices involve losing one attribute and gaining a different attribute. In my case, my relations with that supervisor were severed, but my job security was later guaranteed by the HR department. Prospect theory According to Livingston and Quinn (2007), the prospect theory is founded on the assumption that people are averse to loss. In other words, people dislike losing; instead they prefer winning. In technical terms, a person loses more utility by losing, and such utility, it is argued, cannot be regained (at least not in the exact measure), when a gain similar to the loss is made (Castellan Jr., 1993; Galotti, 2002; Livingston & Quinn, 2007). The prospect theory further indicates that people show more risk aversion when choosing between probable gains than when choosing among probable losses (Galotti, 2002; Livingston & Quinn, 2007). Applied in the current discussion, aspects of prospect theory can be seen in my first decision not to report the bully to the HR department. The risk propensity of going against organisational culture appeared too great at the time, hence my decision to minimise the risk exposure by remaining quiet. However, and upon continued stay in the company coupled with the threat of being accused of insubordination, I was faced with two risks – i.e. that of continuing suffering due to bullying, and that of being unfairly accused of insubordination. True to the prospect theory, none of the two risks pushed me to act and engage in the activity that seemingly had less serious consequences. I knew that upon filing the complaint against the supervisor, I stood the risk of not convincing them enough, at which point I felt, my supervisor’s accusation of insubordination would succeed. I also knew that failure to file a complaint would result in continued bullying by the supervisor, something that would ultimately undermine my performance at work, even perhaps to the extent of leading me to losing the job. My decision to report the bullying is arguably a reflection of which among the two risks I considered costlier. Personal reflections The decisions made in this essay were personal since they involved my relationship with my supervisor and my need to secure my job. Perhaps my decision-making approach would have taken a different course if the supervisor was bullying team members under my leadership. Overall, this essay acknowledges the fundamental role that decisions play in workplaces and the larger society. Conclusion Making decisions under uncertainty is no doubt a complex undertaking, which may seem simple to other people. One of the notable benchmarks of successful decision-making at least in the context of this essay is the rationality with which I made the decision at first not to report the bully supervisor, and ultimately, to file a complaint against him with the HR department. Such rationality is reflected in the fact that the decisions I made were based on thoughts and actions with which I intended to serve my objectives of securing my employment. As indicated in this essay, attribution theory, choice theory, prospective theory and the adaptive decision-maker framework are some of the concepts that can be used to describe the choices and the decisions that I made. Ultimately however, it is important to note that decision-making is a complex concept that cannot be clearly explained. Even the multiple theories that are used to explain decision-making often fall short of covering all the external and internal factors that affect a person’s decision-making. References Castellan Jr., N. J. (1993). The individual and group decision making: Current issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Galotti, K.M. (2002). Making decisions that matter: How people face important life choices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Byrnes, J. P. (1998). The nature and development of decision making: A self-regulation model. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Foskett, N. & Hemsley-Brown, J. (2001). Choosing futures: Young people’s decision-making in education, training, and careers markets. London: Routledge/Falmer. Livingston, J.A., & Quinn, M.A. (2007). The psychology of decision-making in economics: A review. In K. P. Hofman, (Ed.) Psychology of decision making in economics, business and finance (pp. 163-178). NY: Nova Science Publishers. Oliviera, A. (2007). Decision-making theories and models: A discussion of rational and psychological decision-making theories and models: The search for a cultural-ethical decision-making model. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organisational and Models 12(2), 12-17. Glasse, W. 2010). Choice theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. NY: Harper Collins. Allingham, M. (2002). Choice theory: A very brief introduction. London: OUP. Olver, K. (2008). Choice theory report. NY: Kim Olver. Beresford, B., & Sloper, T. (2008). Understanding the dynamics of decision-making and choice: A scoping study of key psychological theories to inform the design and analysis of the panel study. Heslington, York: Social Research Unit, University of York. Manusov, V., & Spitzberg, B. (2008). Attribution theory: finding good cause in the search for theory. In L.A. Baxter, & D. O. Braithwaite, (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 37-49). London: Sage. Stein, J. G., & Welch, D. A. (1997). Rational and psychological approaches to the study of international conflict: Comparative strengths and weaknesses. In N. Geva, & A. Mintz (Eds.), Decision-making on war and peace: The cognitive-rational debate (pp. 51-80). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Read More