Therefore, in order to be able to create situations where the relationship between both political systems Is positive OFFS rationale to the process of decision making. Decisions undertaken by the political systems would be of equal importance as those that have not been taken. In other words, a decision might be taken to not undertake a particular action for the mutual benefit of both political systems. This re-enforces the fact that strategic decision making lies at the very heart of strategy creation.
The main aim of this essay is to critically analyses the statement that beliefs and the true meaning of strategic decision making changes if organizations and their surrounding environments are considered as political systems. As it has already been suggested that in order to be able to create an environment where both political systems would be able to mutually benefit each other, it is essential to base strategic decisions on rationale and logic. Support for this perspective might also be located in literature.
Herbert Simon in the year 1956 proposed the Satisfying decision making approach which advocated the establishment of an acceptability criterion in context of decision making. According to this approach, all decisions which meet the established acceptability criterion are fit for implementation. Critics of this approach suggested that decisions in every situation need to be optimized and then implemented. The Satisfying decision making approach however was still preferred over the optimal decision making approach as it was realistic in nature.
The approach strongly suggested that it might not be possible to optimism solutions in every situation as inputs and outputs might not be known. Furthermore, acceptability criteria were based on the fact that both decisions that would be implemented and those that would not be implemented would be based on a realistic rationale (Integers Waters, 1982). An example of decision based on logic and rationale might also be located in the movie Apollo 13. Two days prior to the launch of Apollo 13, a decision was taken to replace Ken from the main launch crew with Jack.
Although, it might have been optimal to send Ken up in Space as he had trained for the mission he did not satisfy the acceptability criteria that all astronauts were to be medically fit. Jack was selected as he was a fine pilot and would be able to satisfactorily train for the mission in the given time period. This decision was in complete agreement with the organization and its environment acting as different political systems and both benefiting from each other. The decision was taken in order to ensure that that everyone else remained well and the mission was a success.
Another example of deploying rationale to strategic decision making and creating a win-win situation might be noted from the fact that a decision to allow a ‘direct abort’ was rejected while accepting the decision to allow moon’s gravity to slingshot Apollo 13 to a return path to the earth. This decision was undertaken despite knowing that the former assure would have taken lesser time and the rationale here again was to create a benefiting situation and bring back the astronauts without risking the aircraft’s blow up.
Literature also presents evidence to the fact that strategic decision making is evolutionary. Situations with require decision making might evolve in a variety of ways in line with interacting forces between the two political systems I. E. The organization and its surrounding environment. In this context, it would be necessary to take certain decisions while leave out the rest to continue enjoying the mutually benefiting equilibrium. The ‘mudding through’ approach as provided by Limbo process progresses in an extremely slow manner and recommends taking calculated baby steps.
Additionally, the approach also suggests that any single individual or authority cannot be held responsible for the entire process of decision making and competing authorities might have to bargain and negotiate with each other for taking control (Eisenhower & Kickback, 1992). The movie Apollo 13 also strongly backs up this perspective and presents clear evidence in the favor of competing for power. While astronauts waited in their lifeboat for instructions to return back to earth, they were aced with several situations including rising carbon dioxide levels, limited power availability and no guidance computer etc.
Under these circumstances, heads of various departments negotiated and bargained with each other and decisions were implemented to counter the situation as best as possible. Several decisions such as leaving the heat on and leaving guidance on were left out as they would not have allowed the life boat to re-enter the atmosphere. Ken was called upon to draw up a method for generating/conserving enough power for re-entry and his decision was accepted without any opposition.
It took time for all of these decisions to be taken and the entire safe return strategy was slowly drawn thereby proving that rationale based strategic decision making is at the heart of strategy. It might also be argued that strategic decision making relies heavily on resource availability with decision making authorities. In other words, rationale for a problem at hand might have to be drawn with the help of available information and in terms of available solution alternatives.
Solution alternatives might in turn be drawn from interactions between the two political systems therefore having to leave out decisions which cannot be dad from the currently available information. Support for this perspective might also be drawn from literature. Herbert Simon in the year 1956 proposed the theory of bounded rationality. According to this theory, decision rationality as expressed by an individual in various contexts might be guided by available information, time and cognitive limitations of the individual.
Under these circumstances, the constructed rationale is deployed to the process of decision making while leaving out decisions that do not comply with the rationale (March & Olsen, 1976). Construction of a source based rationale has been demonstrated in Apollo 13. It was soon discovered that Apollo 13 was venting out oxygen into the outer space and a proper reason for the same was not known. Based on a limited amount of information that was available with the control room at that time, it was decided that the leaking oxygen tank needed to be isolated by shutting down the reacting value in the tank.
This decision was made despite knowing that Apollo 13 would no longer be able to land on the moon. The possibility of a manufacturing defect on the other hand was not considered at all at this time as no data on the same was available. Thus, looking at this example, it might be concluded that interaction of the two political systems facilitates data which in turn affects strategic decision making. It is both true and accepted that strategic decision making is at the heart of strategy making at every level. However, it is also true that independent events within the political systems impact the process of decision making.
It might be argued that independent events in interacting environments might have the potential to change certain aspects of the problem at hand thereby impacting decisions that need to be taken. Changes in that had originally been a part of the course of action. Alternately, several steps might be required to be added. In this process of implementing certain decisions while leaving out others, a win-win political equilibrium can only be established providing equal importance to decisions which were implemented and those were not implemented (Langley et al, 1995).
Support for this argument might be located in literature in the form of Garbage Bin model as provided by Cohen, March and Olsen. This approach does not support the fact that the decision making process initiates tit a certain given problem at hand and concludes with a definite solution. In complete contrast to this perspective, the approach believes that decision making is a step by step process where decisions are implemented as a reaction to independent event streams.
The approach also believes that various aspects such as choice opportunities, potential solutions and various participants form a vital part of the decision making process. This particular argument tends to completely explain the current statement in question as it suggests that rational behind decision making is influenced by interactions between the organization and its surrounding systems. These interactions in turn influence the problem at hand (Cohen et al, 1972). Direct instances from the movie Apollo 13 might also be quoted in support of this argument.
By day 6 of the mission, it had been decided that astronauts would have to remain confined in the lifeboat and wait for further instructions while they try to minimize their power consumption. They had also been instructed to turn off the guidance computer, cabin heat and all other equipment in order to be able to consume less than 12 watts. The prospect of being able to consume such less power however was threatened by the possibility of having to fire the engine to enter the earth atmosphere and not bounce off from it.
Participants in the final decision making included the commander in chief of Apollo 13, technical staff, management and the astronauts. A combined strategic decision which consisted to using Earth as a fixed point and flying the ship manually for a while with the prospect of firing the engine only once was drawn. This example clearly depicts that decision making rationales are constructed based on immediate environment interactions. Finally, in order to create an environment where both political systems would be able to mutually benefit each other, it is essential to base strategic decisions on practical knowledge.
This knowledge in turn might only be acquired through a systematic process. It can be argued that whenever a problem is encountered, strategic decision making is implemented in order to create a strategy and solve the problem at hand. A strategy to solve a problem however can never be complete. This might be attributed to the fact that a strategy is created with the help of knowledge gathered room previous case studies, literature and appropriate assumptions. Actual knowledge shall only be acquired in the actual process of problem solving.
Therefore, the actual process might present several opportunities for making changed to the original strategy based on actual knowledge that has been acquired. This view also advocates that rationale and logic shall be deployed and strategy would be changed and updated as and when required (Prime, 1990). Literature support for this argument might be drawn from the cognitive theory of decision making which suggests that knowledge might only created as a result of interactions between the 3 is a classic example of deployment of logic and rationale and implementing changes as required.
When the mission too off, a strategy for its success had been put in place. Previous knowledge and speculations were utilized in order to ensure that the spacecraft would be able to land safely on the moon. However, as the actual situation turned out, initially built strategy had to be completely replaced with the one that would allow astronauts to come back to the Earth while minimizing risks of blowing up the aircraft. Looking at the above discussion, it becomes clear that tragic decision making does lie at the heart of strategy creation and that logic and rational play a vital role in the strategic decision making process.