Marry

The main types of errors in managerial decision-making that increase the uncertainties in ru

Making managerial decisions is the main function of a manager. How to avoid erroneous decisions that can lead to the destruction of the business? Who is most likely to make mistakes? What rules need to be followed in order to make the best decision? Read about it in the article.

It has long been known that a leader is a person whose position obliges him to make the right decisions without fail. It is believed that one of the main criteria for appointment as a leader is the ability to find the most optimal solution, even if it is not the most favorable one. What is called the best possible option. It is known that the winner Nobel Prize According to Herbert Simon in economics: “Management is tantamount to “decision making”. Simon proceeded from the fact that most cases of human decision-making are associated with the search and selection of satisfactory alternatives. Only exceptional cases are associated with the choice of optimal solutions.

However, reality often refutes the opinion that managers are able to accept the right decision and in fact make the wrong decisions. At the same time, due to authority, strength of power, or for some other reason, subordinates unquestioningly follow the instructions of the boss, leading to negative consequences. This phenomenon is especially characteristic of experienced, considered "infallible" bosses. But, practice has shown that many times they lead their organizations "into the swamp", believing that they are on the right track (like the boy who organized the "Children's Crusade"). The decisions of novice leaders are treated more critically and their instructions are often sabotaged, which can also have a positive effect if they are wrong.

I will give an example of one company where the business owner practiced an authoritarian management style, believed that he was much smarter than his staff, because he, and not they created the business, hired them all to work. Interestingly, at the time of the start of the business, he behaved quite differently. At that moment he was a novice entrepreneur, he did not know a lot of things, and therefore he often turned to his staff for advice or advice. The business grew, developed, and at some point the owner considered himself omniscient, and stopped consulting with people. At first, some of them, noticing the boss's mistake, out of habit continued to try to correct him. But having met with his negative, openly aggressive reaction, they gradually ceased to object, while he already believed that he did not need any advice.

At first, the mistakes he made were not so significant, but at a certain point he made several global mistakes at once, based on wrong decisions. The result was the collapse of the business, which was unexpected for him, the situation was, as they say, "like a bolt from the blue." And at this tragic moment, the businessman realized that he had behaved incorrectly for a long time and even began to reproach some subordinates for not warning him, not arguing with him. Some he even accused of betrayal.

The above example demonstrates that excessive self-confidence, the lack of a critical attitude towards one's actions can lead to the most negative consequences. It is characteristic that the wrong decisions were made even by the most talented people from various areas activities: businessmen, military leaders, trainers, pilots and captains of ships. The list could go on and many more examples could be given.

What are the reasons for making wrong decisions? The main ones are:

low qualification, inexperience of the head;
lack of necessary information;
lack of time for analysis, an objective assessment of the situation;
inability to delegate authority, involving other people in decision-making, including subordinates, colleagues, experts;
the expectation that any decision can be changed without significant losses;
excessive self-confidence;
excessive trust in one's own intuition;
propensity for unjustified risk, for too quick decisions.

Such reasons for wrong decisions as low qualification, inexperience are quite obvious. With the current high degree personnel dynamics, new, young leaders are constantly appearing, whom no one taught them how to make decisions. Neither within the walls of universities, nor in business schools, the practice of decision-making is given the necessary attention. Theory dominates in the educational process, they talk about the meaning of decisions, but in reality they do not teach the methods of making them. There are even fewer practical examples, especially negative ones. Mostly they talk about success stories, how someone developed a business, made money on an excellent solution, but it is known that there are more businesses that failed than those that took place. There are no statistics on the number of correct and incorrect decisions, but we can certainly say that the ratio will be close. But, they learn mainly about successes. Is this the correct approach?

Of course, it is important to pay attention to the lack of necessary information, which so often affects decision-making. Our managers traditionally do not pay due attention to the collection and analysis of information, which is due not only to the peculiarities of the mentality, but also to the shortcomings of professional training. Various courses on working with information are mainly structured so that students learn about the methods of collecting it, but do not know how to dispose of it later. It is known that in the cost items of companies, the costs of acquiring information are in last place, clearly inferior to corporate holidays and other similar events. Information specialists (we are not talking about programmers or system administrators) have traditionally been in second or third roles, and during the crisis they were ruthlessly reduced in many companies. As a result, it turns out that decisions are made without the availability of high-quality information, often on the basis of a frankly subjective, voluntaristic approach.

A separate discussion deserves the propensity of managers to take risks, which can be called the “adrenaline complex”. The adrenaline lifestyle originated in the 90s, but even now there are quite a lot of its adherents. Perhaps, over the past couple of years, they have become even more. This style involves quick decisions with big risks, they are like betting in a casino with an initial agreement on the possibility of losing. Many people become businessmen because they are ready to exist in a reality where the degree of uncertainty is extremely high, while others want stability and certainty. "Adrenaline junkies" often get the jackpot, but just as often, having made a quick decision, they lose. Their games can go on for a long time, or they can quickly lead to the destruction of the business; Everything is like playing roulette.

Thus, the question arises of how to avoid extremely bad decisions if possible, what to do for this. I believe that in order to make optimal decisions it is necessary:

be based on the collection of the maximum amount of correct, objective information;
study similar cases based on their experience;
involve specialists and expert opinion in decision-making;
be critical of own possibilities without falling into disbelief in their own strength;
allocate as much time to making a decision as the situation allows; is fraught with negative consequences, both delaying the decision-making process and excessive haste.

There is a proverb “for one beaten they give two unbeaten”, the meaning of which is that experience comes on the basis of mistakes made. This is indeed true, but it is better to learn from the mistakes of others, and not from your own. Especially in business.

When making decisions in organizations, mistakes are often made, especially when management decisions are made under conditions of extreme uncertainty. Managers simply cannot determine or predict which alternative will solve the problem. In such cases, organizations often have to use trial and error, although this means some risk. If the alternative fails, then the organization can learn from this and try to implement another alternative that is more appropriate to the situation. Each unsuccessful attempt gives new knowledge and information. The meaning of the manager's actions is to move forward along the path of solving the problem, despite possible mistakes. "Chaotic movement is preferable to orderly inaction." In many cases, managers are inspired to create an atmosphere of experimentation, even recklessness, to encourage creative decision-making. If one idea fails, then another should be tested.

Failure often underlies success! PepsiCo believes that if all of their new products turns out to be successful, then they do something wrong, not taking the necessary risk associated with opening a new market. Managers and organizations can only learn decision-making by making their own mistakes, while gaining experience and knowledge that will enable them to operate more effectively in the future. Robert Townsend, former president of Avis Corporation, offers this advice: “Admit your mistakes openly, perhaps even joyfully. Encourage your colleagues to do the same by expressing sympathy for them. Never criticize them. Children learn to walk by constantly falling. If you spank a child every time he falls, he will never enjoy walking. My average hit rate at Avis was no higher than 0.333. Two out of every three decisions I made were wrong. But these errors were discussed openly, and most of them were corrected with the help of my friends.”

The second explanation for the escalation of commitment to mismanagement is that firmness and perseverance are valued in today's society. Managers who consistently stand up for their decisions are more likely to be perceived as leaders than those who jump from one course of action to another. Even though organizations learn through trial and error, consistency in decision making is considered good tone for the organization. But such demands result in a course of action that is strongly supported, resources are misallocated, and organizational learning is stifled.

Failure to admit your mistakes and embrace a new course of action is much worse than an attitude that inspires you to make mistakes and learn from them. Based on what has been said in this chapter, we can conclude that if companies constantly learn to make good management decisions, they will eventually succeed. Yes, they will make mistakes along the way, but eventually they will learn to overcome difficulties through trial and error.

End of work -

This topic belongs to:

Textbook of educational discipline Information technologies in professional activity

Textbook of educational DISCIPLINE Information Technology c.. Developer K e n Associate Professor Yaroshenko E V..

If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:

What will we do with the received material:

If this material turned out to be useful for you, you can save it to your page on social networks:

All topics in this section:

Corporate information system
Solving management tasks based on operational and reliable information with a constant increase in the number of factors affecting the operation of the enterprise and, at the same time, reducing the time for

Methodology for planning the material needs of an enterprise. MRP systems
MRP (Material Requirement Planning) - Planning the need for materials. The Material Resource Planning (MRP) methodology is

Production resource planning systems. MRP II systems.
MRP II (Manufacturing Resource Planning) - Planning of production resources. The main goals of MRP systems are: meeting the need for materials, component

Enterprise resource planning system. ERP system.
ERP system (Enterprise Resource Planning System) is an enterprise resource planning system. A new stage in the development and implementation of enterprise management systems based on

Types of ERP systems
ERP is an integrated software product that allows you to manage distribution, logistics, inventory, delivery, and accounting. On the Russian market, all

CRM systems
CRM system (Customer Relationship Management System) - customer relationship management system. This is a modern strategy based on and

Goals, processes, structure
The functionality of CRM covers marketing, sales and service, which correspond to the stages of customer acquisition, the very act of making a transaction (transaction) and after-sales service, that is, all those

Overview of CRM solutions in Russia
If in the Western market the number of CRM systems is measured in hundreds, then in Russia there is a rather narrow range of solutions, mainly large suppliers that have been offering their ERP systems for a long time. At the same

SRM systems
SRM system (Supplier Relationship Management) is a system for managing relationships with suppliers. SRM system is a tool for strengthening relationships with suppliers. Many businesses are trying to improve

Databases and data warehouses
Often in speech, we replace the word "information" with the word "data". There is indeed a close relationship between data and information. The existence of one without the other is impossible. Convert

Discrepancies in the requirements for storing data in the database and data warehouse.
The database stores only the latest values of any information (for example, the current value of the client's account, the current value of the name and parameters of the client). The data warehouse will contain

The problem of storing the original information of the company
The main purpose of Data Warehouses is to provide managers of all levels of analytical data management for decision-making in the shortest possible time and at a minimum cost. Main users of information

Data marts
The data warehouse stores information on all aspects of the organization's activities. The data mart (data mart) is a specialized data warehouse containing

Business Intelligence (BI)
The introduction of BI technologies in various software products is a new and promising approach to managing company data and knowledge. For the first time about such a concept as "bus

Multidimensional data analysis based on OLAP
To solve analytical problems related to complex calculations, forecasting, modeling scenarios "What if ...", the technology of multidimensional data analysis is used - Technol

Data mining technology
According to Gartner, unstructured documents make up more than 80% of corporate data, and the number of external sources (Internet resources, blogs, forums, media) is

Types of patterns that allow you to identify Data Mining methods
There are five standard types of patterns that allow you to identify Data Mining methods: association, sequence, classification, clustering and forecasting.

Decision making process
How to make the right decision? We ask ourselves this eternal question throughout our lives. And how often we make decisions based on intuition at best. Rational

Decision tasks
The decision problem has two main varieties: 1. choice problem (choose or reject several options from a group of possible ones) 2. distribution problem

Decision making technology.
When making a decision, all decisions can be divided into four large groups: 1. decisions based on control theory 2. decisions based on the Carnegie model (the model is limited

The influence of a rapidly changing environment on the decision-making process.
At present, in some industries, the pace of competitive and technological change is so rapid that market intelligence is either unavailable or outdated, strategic

Decision Support Systems (DSS)
A decision support system (DSS) is an automated information system that helps decision makers (DMs) make a motivated choice of the best option

Structure of the DSS
The main components of the DSS are: equipment (work stations), software(DSSS generators), databases, model databases. DSS uses analytical models, specialized

Expert systems
Management ISs are designed to meet the information needs of company employees dealing with decision making. These systems are necessary in order to see the trend

Participants in the development and creation of expert systems
An expert is a specialist who has a reputation as a person who can find the right solutions in a particular subject area. Knowledge Engineer - IT Specialist

Implementation
Practical development of ES using selected tools: traditional programming languages, list processing languages and procedural languages, logic programming language

financial risk
Financial risk is associated with the possibility of a firm failing to meet its financial obligations. This is the risk of financial loss as a result of damage due to any financial transactions.

Risk management strategy
The risk must be managed using a variety of methods that allow predicting the onset of a risk event and taking timely measures to reduce the degree of risk. In Russian practice, the risk

IT project risk management
IT project risk management, in general, includes the following processes: identification and identification of anticipated risks; risk analysis and assessment; choice

Difficulties and errors in managerial decisions

A characteristic feature of any decision-making situation is the presence of a large number of options for action, from which you need to choose the best one.

One of the difficulties of decision-making is that the goal (s) must be given quantitative and qualitative characteristics. Moreover, quantitative characteristics are more preferable, since they allow formalizing the tasks of choice. Another difficulty is the limited resources, the need to allocate them, as well as the choice of ways to use them.

The same goal can be achieved in different alternative ways. Best Option actions that provide maximum efficiency are called optimal (according to a given criterion or their group), and the process of finding this solution is called optimization.

Action options that are close to optimal in terms of efficiency are called acceptable.

The task is to choose the most preferable combination of them from the set of goals (methods) that can be achieved with available resources (a very difficult problem) and at the same time find best ways achieving these goals.

The problem of finding the best solution can be divided into two parts. From the set of options, it is necessary to select rational ones (this is the first part), and from a small number (5-10) of rational options, choose the optimal one (this is the second part).

Usually, the decision affects the interests of several departments, and in such situations, conflicts of goals and preferences are possible both at the stage of preparation and at the stage of implementation of the management decision.

At the stage of preparing a managerial decision, there may be disagreements between the goals of the departments (each department will strive to solve its own problem). This problem is solved by group work, by defining main goal enterprises and, accordingly, the sub-goals of the subdivision of this main goal.

At the stage of implementation of the solution, conflicts may arise in the distribution of powers, duties, resources and responsibilities. Therefore, it is important to take into account and, if possible, detail who, how, by what means, in what time frame and what should be done.

The final decision can be made by a decision maker (one person) or a decision maker (the decision is made by a group) based on personal or group preferences, respectively, both options for making decisions have their own characteristics.

Features of making individual decisions:

responsibility for the results of the implementation of the decision lies with one person
great influence of personal preferences on the final choice
one person's limited judgment
ease of choice (no need to negotiate preferences)
small time spent on decision making
high probability of making an unsatisfactory decision
low probability of making a risky decision
high dependence of making a satisfactory decision on the competence of the decision maker
influence on the choice of various perception phenomena and features of the human information processing system.

Features of making group decisions:

shared responsibility
high probability of making a risky decision
low degree of influence of personal preferences of each on the overall result of the choice
the need to organize the subordination of the goals of subjects to the goals of the enterprise
breadth of judgments, complexity of choice
a lot of time to make a decision
low probability of making an unsatisfactory decision
the dependence of making a satisfactory decision on the competence of subjects is low.

Mistakes in managerial decisions
Decisions made at all levels of management, in some cases, lead to disorganization. Errors in managerial decisions are associated with violations of the principles of managing organizations. If an erroneous, ill-conceived strategic decision is made, then, as a result, both the organization's strategy and all decisions made within its framework will contain an error. We can distinguish the following errors in management decisions.

Pendulum solutions. Such decisions are erroneous in nature and consist in “correcting” the erroneous decision by trying to “return” to what was before. For example, during the perestroika period, older people complained that under socialism it was still not as bad as it is now, it is necessary to return the old order and everything will return “to normal”. Another example: the company decided to reduce the sales department. The marketing department, which was assigned the functions performed by the sales department (due to the increase in the total amount of work), stopped conducting marketing research. The marketing strategy began to lose effectiveness. With a new decision, the sales department was restored again.

Decisions that duplicate or (worse still) contradict the organizational order. Decisions of this kind may arise in the event of a change in management. Each leader brings his own “charter” to the organization, i.e. establishes its own rules, which in some cases may contradict established traditions, the organizational order established by job descriptions or other internal regulatory documents. Duplication of organizational order is more dangerous than is commonly thought. Functions are divided into two unequal parts: some are mandatory, those that are reminded by the authorities, others are secondary, since no one additionally points to them. Thus, not only the dominance of orders over the regulated order is recognized, but it is also destroyed, the latter is called into question.

Decisions that ignore organizational hierarchy. In this case, the principle of management "on command" is violated, which means that top management makes decisions addressed to middle managers, and middle managers - addressed further "down" in the hierarchy. Violation of this principle means that the decision is addressed through the level of the hierarchy. For example, the general director issues orders addressed to the head of a department, bypassing the leadership of the department.

Decisions "tied" to the organizational hierarchy. Decisions of this type imply the dominance of structure over function, where new structures are created to solve problems, while existing units (functionally suitable for performing these functions) work at 50% intensity. This can also include decisions in which rules dominate function (for example, bureaucracy).

Contradictory decisions. Decisions that contradict those made before, put the performers in front of the problem: what really needs to be done? As a rule, such situations arise when previously adopted orders and other acts containing information and instructions that contradict the newly approved ones are not canceled in the newly adopted ones. A similar situation also arises when the principle of unity of command is violated and subordinates receive two instructions containing conflicting instructions. For example, the shift supervisor gives the command "break for lunch", and the site supervisor orders to work without a break in order to speed up production. Usually in this case, employees prefer the order of the highest level, while ignoring the instructions of the immediate superior.

Impossible (adventurous) decisions. The essence of such decisions is based on a reassessment of the organization's capabilities, inadequate perception and understanding of the decision-making situation. Such decisions are usually not implemented at all, and if they are, they lead to unexpectedly opposite results.

belated decisions. Decisions of this type are made by managers out of fear of making mistakes and making the wrong decision when an unreasonably long time is spent on developing an operational measure. In this case, a thoroughly developed decision that is relevant for the past period is made later than necessary, and no matter how well it was thought out, verified and detailed, it has already lost its relevance in the changed situation.

Demotivating Solutions. Decisions that use inadequate motivation (not corresponding to the socio-psychological characteristics of the team), for example, the use of coercive motivation where motivation could be used, or guaranteeing benefits that do not meet the needs of employees. For example, a director issues an order stating, among other things, that failure to comply this decision entails a pecuniary penalty in such and such an amount from wages employee, instead of guaranteeing a bonus if the solution is successfully executed, or guaranteeing free distribution of tights in a team that is 82% male.

Wrong decisions. Such decisions are made as a result of insufficient information about the problem situation, disinformation taken as a reliable, incorrect interpretation of the organization's performance indicators, that is, based on opinion, not based on the real state of the company and the environment.

Undeveloped Solutions. These are decisions that are relevant to this organization, which are constantly talked about, but no one takes them. They are among the most dangerous kind of decisions, because even the wrong decision gives some result. In some cases, inaction, avoidance of the need to decide, ignoring the changes required by the organization, and moreover, attempts to keep the development artificially necessary for the organization lead to stagnation and are always accompanied by a loss of enthusiasm of staff, customers and those with whom the organization interacts at all its levels. Such an organization is perceived as "dying".

Decision Theories

Decision theory is usually understood as a formal interdisciplinary theory of rational decisions of an individual or social organization, as well as an algorithm for choosing an alternative in the presence of many possibilities. Of the theories of decision making, the theory of bounded rational choice is the most widespread. The basic elements of any decision theory are shown in the figure.

Rice. Basic elements of the decision model

Decision theories are usually divided into normative and descriptive. AT normative(prescriptive) theories examine logical foundations and develop formal rules for rational decisions. descriptive(descriptive) theories answer the question of how and why decisions are made in real life. Attempts are also being made to combine both approaches into one. These are the so-called integrative theories that take into account both objective, logical factors and subjective ones, individual aspects decision making.

Models of normative decision theory, in turn, are divided into two types: closed and open models. Closed decision models come from rational choice theory. It is assumed that the situation is fully formulated and all connections are given, so that decision rules can be derived that ensure optimal achievement of the goal. At the same time, one speaks of the so-called well-structured problems.

Operations research techniques (eg, linear programming) can be used to solve problems. The uncalculated influence of subjective and individual factors of behavior is often excluded; an unlimitedly rational behavior of the decision maker is assumed, who makes the decision and strives to maximize the benefit (Homo Economicus).

The main premises of rational choice theories are as follows:

goals are known, clearly and unambiguously formulated; there is a complete, internally consistent system of decision priorities that allows you to make a rational, utility-maximizing choice;
the problem to be solved is known and clearly stated;
all possible alternatives are known and considered by the decision maker;
all the consequences of individual alternatives are known and considered by the decision maker;
the values of individual consequences are known or can be easily determined;
there are no restrictions in terms of the complexity of the calculations that must be performed to find a solution that gives the maximum benefit;
The decision maker acts as an individual who is not influenced by personal values and group norms.

Under such prerequisites, the process of rational choice and implementation of a solution alternative includes the following steps:

problem recognition;
goal setting;
search for alternatives;
evaluation of alternatives;
choosing the best alternative;
solution implementation.

Obviously, the premises of rational choice theories for many life situations seem too idealized. Due to limited information, lack of time and other resources, the decision maker is not able to identify and evaluate all possible alternatives and is inclined to accept the first alternative that satisfies the level of his claims. In the literature, this approach is called bounded rationality.

The conditions and requirements of the environment limit the field of decision-making, in addition, the decision maker has to take into account multilayer conflicting goals (this circumstance is characterized in the literature as contextual rationality).

Although it is not possible to make an optimal decision, the decision maker may try to use decision-making approaches and techniques that make it possible to find a more or less good solution. This approach is called procedural rationality.

Often decisions are sufficiently justified, i.e. rationalized only after their adoption. The essential phases of the decision-making process occur only after, not before, the choice (this behavior is called retrospective rationality).

Open models of normative decision theories are based on a more realistic theory of bounded rational choice. Open decision models take into account that the premises of the decision are not yet uniquely defined, and also take into account boundedly rational behavior. These models are applied to poorly structured problems that are not fully defined or with little accuracy. A typical form of an open model is, for example, a decision tree. The choice of solutions is based on a simplified model of reality (bounded rationality). Decisions are made within the individual horizon of perception of the decision maker. The search for alternatives is limited only to the identification of satisfactory alternatives; only in exceptional cases are they looking for the optimum. Repeated unsuccessful attempts to achieve satisfactory solutions lead to a decrease in the level of claims, and vice versa, successes lead to its increase.

Prerequisites for Bounded Rational Choice Theories:

decision makers have incomplete information and an incomplete picture of the problem situation;
Decision makers can never know all possible alternatives and their consequences;
action alternatives are not fully evaluated, since it is impossible to accurately assess the results and the likelihood of their manifestation;
it is never possible to determine the optimal solution in advance; only the search for a satisfactory result can be taken as a criterion.

In practice, the decision process consists of a whole series of preliminary and partial decisions. At the same time, the degree of approximation to the optimum is determined by the level of claims of the decision maker, which raises the question of whether it can, at certain costs, achieve a solution to the problem and what are the consequences associated with this.

Types of decision theory models

In decision theory, there are several approaches that are called decision models. These include the following types of models: normative (classical), descriptive (descriptive), the Carnegie model, the incremental decision-making process model, the "wastebasket" model, etc.

Regulatory The (classical) model proposed by Herbert Simon allows the decision maker to identify the most effective ways to achieve the goal. They are functional equations, which reflect the relationship between dependent and independent variables. The independent variables in such models are action parameters, and the dependent variables in these models are the expected variables resulting from the influence of the independent variables. These models usually look like this:

E=f(a,b,c),

where E is the analyzed expected variable; a, b, c - independent variables, parameters of actions (decisions).

These equations are supplemented by a system of restrictions that limit the freedom of action of the decision maker.

Normative decision theory is based on two concepts: the concept of utility maximization and the concept of bounded rationality.

Utility maximization concept . The essence of this concept lies in the consideration of the "economic" person as a decision-maker, endowed with rational thinking and choosing the optimal solution. The optimal solution is considered to be the one with the maximum utility. The utility of an alternative is determined in accordance with a utility function that reflects individual system preferences of the decision maker. Comparing alternatives, the decision maker explicitly or implicitly compares their utility according to certain criteria that make up the utility function.

In decision theory, special methods have been developed for constructing and maximizing the utility function, which really help to determine the best solution. The application of these methods in practice is time-consuming and therefore not always possible and appropriate.

The normative decision-making model is based on economic assumptions:

1. The decision maker seeks to achieve known and agreed goals. Problems are defined and precisely formulated;

2. The decision maker strives for certainty, obtaining all the necessary information, all possible options and possible consequences are calculated;

3. the criteria for evaluating alternatives are known. The decision maker chooses the option that brings the greatest economic benefit to the organization;

4. The decision maker acts rationally and logically approaches the assessment of options, prioritization, his choice, in the best way corresponds to the achievement of the organization's goals.

The value of the model is that it encourages managers to make rational decisions. The prevalence of normative models is largely associated with the emergence of various quantitative methods of decision-making using computer technology. Quantitative methods include decision tree building, payoff matrices, break-even analysis, linear programming, forecasting, and operating activity models. Corporate information systems also contribute to the development of the normative model. The normative model is most adequate for programmed decisions, situations of confidence or risk, when there is access to all the necessary information, which makes it possible to calculate the probabilities of outcomes.

descriptive(descriptive) models are based on empirical observations, they contain a small number of elements and explain economic relations as they exist in the real world, but in a simplified form. The descriptive model describes real process decision-making in difficult situations (unprogrammed decisions and situations of uncertainty and uncertainty), when managers, even if they want to, cannot make an economically rational decision.

The descriptive decision model is based on the work of Herbert Simon, who proposed the concepts of normative and descriptive models and proved that bounded rationality means that the activities of individuals in an organization lie within or within acceptable rationality (bounded rationality and acceptability).

Herbert Simon sharply criticized the classical model of " economic man which makes optimal decisions in any situation. This model is extremely far from reality, since in fact human rationality is limited and there is a lot of irrationality in people's behavior. These conclusions led G. Simon to develop the concept of bounded rationality, which considers the so-called administrative person who makes decisions based on simplified ideas about reality. Investigating the technique of making managerial decisions, G. Simon introduced the concepts of programmed and non-programmed decisions and came to the conclusion that in order to increase their efficiency, organizations should strive to program as many decisions as possible.

An organization is an extremely complex system, and managers don't have the time or the ability to process all the information needed to make informed choices. Therefore, the decisions they make are not so much rational as acceptable. Acceptability means that the decision maker chooses the first option that satisfies the minimum acceptability criterion. Instead of analyzing all options, choosing the one that promises the highest economic result, managers settle on the first option that can fix the problem, even if they allow the possibility of other, more profitable solutions. The search for exhaustive information and the "optimum point" takes too much of the manager's precious time.

The assumptions on which the descriptive model is based are the following:

1. The goals of the decision, as a rule, do not differ in certainty, they are in conflict with each other. Managers are often unaware of problems and opportunities in the organization;

2. rational procedures are not always used, and if they are, they are limited to a simplified view of the problem that does not reflect the complexity of real events;

3. the boundaries of the search for different options by managers are determined by human, informational and resource limitations;

4. Most managers are content with acceptable rather than maximizing solutions. This is partly due to the limited information they have, and partly due to the fuzziness of the maximization criteria.

The descriptive model is descriptive, reflects the real process of making managerial decisions in complex situations, and does not dictate how they should be made in accordance with the theoretical ideal, it takes into account human and other constraints that affect the rationality of choice. The descriptive decision-making model is largely based on the intuition of managers. Intuitive decision making uses personal experience and insight into more than consistent logic or clear inference. Intuition is not arbitrary or irrational, as it is based on years of practice and common sense stored in the subconscious. By tapping into their intuition, based on years of problem-solving experience, managers are much more likely to recognize that there is a problem in the organization; and at the same time there is an intuitive presentiment that prompts them to choose a solution to the problem, which significantly speeds up the decision-making process.

In a descriptive model, relationships between elements can be described as simple mathematical equations. Their disadvantage is that they do not reflect functional relationships and limitations, but they form the basis for building more complex models. An example of descriptive models would be ideal competition models for real world price forecasting, or planned costing, simple investment calculations.

Descriptive models express the required objective function in terms of production operations, i.e. they prescribe a certain technology, procedures, using which the decision maker can choose the optimal solution, taking into account the given restrictions and criteria. Therefore, a descriptive (descriptive) model is the basis for building optimization models.

Unlike normative decision theory, which is based on the concept of utility maximization and prescribes how people should make decisions, there is currently no sufficiently general descriptive or descriptive theory of decision making. At the same time, there are several private models that describe and explain the behavior of people in real situations of choice. These include the concept of bounded rationality, prospect theory, remorse theory, and multicriteria choice strategies, among others.

The concept of bounded rationality . In practice, people rarely behave rationally. In most cases, as a rule, they are limited to satisfactory solutions, which, although inferior to the optimal ones, are quite acceptable from the point of view of achieving the set goals.

Managers are limited to satisfactory solutions for the following reasons:

1) due to limited time, experience and knowledge, the decision maker takes into account only a limited number of alternatives;

2) due to limited time, some of the alternatives are not accepted for consideration and evaluation as recognized as unsatisfactory during the first consideration;

3) anticipation of all possible outcomes requires a multi-criteria assessment, complex mathematical calculations and scenario development, which is associated with time-consuming and involving specialists in the development process (often the manager believes that decision-making is exclusively his prerogative and that the involvement of specialists will mean admitting his own incompetence );

4) the leader often has to make decisions in conditions of uncertainty (not enough reliable information about organizational problems; the latent nature of the actual problems that are the causes of those that are being solved; the untapped potential of the organization, its strengths, the opportunities that are in the external environment and can be used to solving the problems of the organization, threats to the external environment);

5) risk assessment involves the use of special methods of probability theory, which imposes restrictions on their use;

6) decision-making takes place constantly, in the mode of "chronic lack of time", therefore errors are possible;

7) the lack of a strategy or its clear formulation, as well as detailing to policies, projects, programs and specific activities leads to the "blurring of the goals" of the organization. It is not clear "in the name of what" the decision is made, which should be the result of not only a specific operation, but also the function of a specific subsystem and the activities of the organization as a whole.

All of these reasons are due to mental and organizational factors: handicapped information processing person; distortion of information in the process of its transfer to decision makers; the presence of hidden organizational processes, organizational pathologies, etc.

prospect theory. Prospect theory or "prospect theory", proposed by D. Kahneman and A. Tversky in 1979, describes the behavior of people when they make decisions under risk. A prospect is a choice situation with probabilistic outcomes. The conclusions of prospect theory, based on numerous psychological experiments, also differ from the recommendations of the normative expected utility theory.

First, as a result of experiments, it was found that people attach more importance to losses than gains, even if their magnitude is the same. In other words, losses always seem "bigger" than gains. For example, we might be more upset by the loss of $500 than by the discovery of the same amount of money. In particular, the attitude towards losses is manifested in the so-called property (or contribution) effect, according to which the loss of an object is felt by people more strongly than its acquisition. For example, people usually agree to sell a thing they own (say, a car) for a price higher than what they themselves would agree to pay for this thing if it did not belong to them. It is logical to assume that in this case, the sellers, as it were, part with a valuable item for themselves and therefore consider its sale as a loss. However, for buyers, this item does not yet have such a high value, and therefore they consider its acquisition as a win. Since in both cases we are talking about the same object, the objective values of loss (for the seller) and gain (for the buyer) are the same. However, due to these reasons, the subjective value of the loss is usually higher than the subjective value of the gain. Thus, the value of losses is subjectively overestimated compared to the value of the same "number" of acquisitions.

This phenomenon is used by some firms that offer their products based on " probationary period". Owning an item subjectively increases its value, and it can be difficult for the buyer to part with it. In addition, the ownership effect is the cause of the main contradiction that is present in any negotiations. The thing is that some people tend to consider a joint agreement concluded during negotiations as a loss, while others - as a gain, even if objectively it is equally beneficial to both parties.

Second, the authors of prospect theory found that people's attitudes toward risk strongly depend on the formulation of the choice problem. This feature of human behavior is closely related to the attitude towards losses and is also not taken into account in the theory of expected utility. It lies in the fact that people usually avoid risk in order to get a guaranteed gain, and prefer risk in order to avoid a guaranteed loss. To illustrate this pattern, D. Kahneman and A. Tversky give two examples that they used for experiments. In the first example, the subjects were asked to choose between alternatives A and B.

A: With a probability of 0.50 you will receive $1,000, or with a probability of 0.50 you will receive nothing.

Q: You will surely receive $500.

Both options have the same expected utility plus $500 ($1000*0.5+ 0$*0.5 = $500*1.0). Therefore, theoretically, the answers of the subjects should have been divided equally. However, this did not happen. The vast majority of participants refused to take risks and chose alternative B, which is associated with obtaining a guaranteed win. In this case, the experiment showed risk avoidance.

In another example, subjects were asked to choose between alternatives C and D.

S: With a probability of 0.50 you will lose $1000 or with a probability of 0.50 you will not lose anything.

D: You will surely lose $500.

This time, most of the participants in the experiment chose alternative C, i.e. agreed to take the risk to avoid the guaranteed loss of $500, although in this case both options have the same expected utility equal to minus $500 (-1000$*0.5 + 0$*0.5 = -500$*1, 0). Thus, in this case, the desire for risk was demonstrated.

The examples given, as well as the results of other studies, confirm general conclusion prospect theory that the formulation of the problem affects people's preferences and their attitude to risk. If the problem of choice is presented "in terms of acquisitions," then people avoid risk. Conversely, if the problem of choice is presented "in terms of losses", then people prefer to take risks. This psychological phenomenon is called the framing effect.

The "framing effect" helps to better understand people's behavior in situations of risk. However, it has not only theoretical significance, but can also be used for practical purposes. For example, it can be used to predict the behavior of people when making decisions, depending on how the choice problem is formulated - in terms of gains or in terms of losses. If the task is presented in terms of payoffs, then in most cases people will tend to avoid risk. If the task is presented in terms of losses, then, most likely, the opposite trend will be observed - the desire for risk. Moreover, it is possible not only to predict the behavior of people, but also to influence it by changing the type of framing depending on whether we want to initiate a cautious or risky decision.

Third, another difference between prospect theory and expected utility theory is how people relate to the likelihood of getting a particular outcome. It has been found that people tend to overestimate small probabilities and underestimate medium and high probabilities of achieving meaningful outcomes. This phenomenon is called the effect of subjective assessment of small, medium and large probabilities. Thus, the desire of people to overestimate the low probability can be illustrated by the example of two tasks. In the first task, the subjects were asked to choose between alternatives A and B.

A: 1 in 1,000 chance of winning $5,000.

Q: Get $5 for sure.

Most of the people who were given this task chose alternative A, i.e. chose to risk to win $5000, although the expected utility of both options is the same and equals plus $5 ($5000*0.001 + 0$*0.999= $5*1.0). In the second task, it was proposed to make a choice between alternatives C and D.

C: 1 in 1000 chance of losing $5000.

D: Just lose 5$.

Now most of the subjects have chosen alternative D, i.e. refused to risk, although in this problem the expected utility of both options is the same and equals minus $5 (- $5000*0.001 + 0$*0.999 = - $5*1.0). Since the expected utility of the alternatives is the same, in both cases the subjects would have to be divided into two approximately equal groups. However, this did not happen again. According to the authors of the experiment, the observed effect can be explained by the fact that people overestimate small probabilities (for example, 0.001) of big wins or losses. Therefore, the expected utility of option A, compared to B, subjectively increases, and option C, compared to D, decreases subjectively.

As the authors of prospect theory point out, people's tendency to overestimate the risk of large losses is exploited in the insurance business when people agree to pay certain insurance premiums to "secure" yourself from possible accidents.

The theory of remorse. Along with the theory of prospects, which explains the "irrational" behavior of people in situations of choice, in 1982 the American economists G. Lums and R. Sugden proposed the so-called theory of remorse, which is based on two main provisions.

First, many people feel remorse or regret after making a decision. This is because, in some cases, they evaluate the quality of their decisions not in terms of what actually happened, but in terms of what could have happened if they had done their best. This phenomenon is called “counterfactual casting” because it is based not on real, but on imaginary events.

Secondly, people not only experience these feelings, but also try to imagine and predict them before making a decision. For example, if a group of subjects is offered a choice between alternative A - with a probability of 0.50 to receive $ 1,000 or with a probability of 0.50 of not receiving anything, and alternative B - for sure to receive $ 500, then the majority will choose the second option because of fear of disappointment, which they can test in case of failure. In this situation, we observe a similar tendency to avoid risk, which is described in the theory of prospects, but the theory of remorse explains it differently - with the help of such a thing as regret. which is added to a simple assessment of the utility of each alternative. Thus, the theory of remorse enriches and develops the previously proposed prospect theory, explaining many of the decisions of people under risk conditions by their desire to avoid regrets associated with unfavorable outcomes of random events.

Multicriteria choice strategies. Most often in their lives, people encounter such problems when alternatives are evaluated according to several indicators of efficiency or quality (for example, profit, risk, costs) that describe various properties of the objects presented for selection. These properties are called alternative attributes, and the resulting problems are called multicriteria or multiattribute decision problems. They represent enough complex class tasks for the human information processing system. The presence of several selection criteria leads to a sharp increase in the amount of information needed to evaluate and compare alternatives, and, as a result, to a large load on a person's short-term memory. Since its scope is limited, this forces people to use various heuristics to simplify the task and make an informed choice. Numerous studies have also been carried out in this area in order to describe the behavior of people and to determine the basic heuristics that they use in situations of choice with many criteria. As a result of the experiments, two groups of such rules, or heuristics, were established, which were called the compensation strategy and the exclusion strategy.

Compensation strategies are used when people seek to compare the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative in order to compare them among themselves and choose the best one. These include the additive strategy, the additive difference strategy, and the ideal point strategy.

1. An additive strategy involves people scoring the overall utility of each alternative as the sum of the individual attribute scores given the relative importance of those attributes. At the same time, attribute estimates are set subjectively or calculated as some scaled values expressed in a single dimensionless scale. So, in the example of buying a house, you can highlight the main attributes such as price, location, age of construction, and others, determine their importance for the buyer, evaluate each option for all attributes, and then add the resulting estimates, preliminarily multiplying them by the “weights” of the attributes. Then the best choice is the option with the maximum total utility.

Obviously, the additive strategy is consistent with the normative theory of utility. However, this does not mean that, using this strategy, people actually perform the arithmetic operations of addition and multiplication. It's about only about the way a person thinks when he gives a "total" assessment of each alternative, taking into account the values of all attributes and their importance. In addition, as it turned out in experiments, in pairwise comparisons, people often use a simplifying trick - they simply count the number of attributes in which one of the alternatives is superior to the other, and choose the alternative with a larger number.

2. The additive difference strategy is used in pairwise comparisons of alternatives and lies in the fact that people do not evaluate the overall utility of each alternative, but only the difference between them. Formally, this difference looks like the sum of the "weighted" differences in the estimates of alternatives for all attributes. If the resulting sum is positive, then the first of the two alternatives is preferable. than the second. At the same time, it was found that people often neglect those attributes for which the difference in the estimates of alternatives is small. Continuing our example, we can evaluate the “difference” between two purchase options only in terms of price and location, if they are approximately the same in other attributes. Then an opinion is formed about their difference in general and a judgment is made about the preference of one or another option.

3. The ideal point strategy resembles the rule of additive differences, but differs from it in that all alternatives are compared not with each other, but with some standard, i.e. an ideal option that exists only in our minds, but is practically unattainable. Then the best alternative is considered to be the closest to the “ideal”, taking into account the values of all attributes.

Exclusion strategies, also called non-compensating strategies, are used when people refuse to compare the merits and demerits of all alternatives and apply simple heuristics to eliminate as many “not worth considering” options from consideration and leave a small number of alternatives, from which a reasonable choice can be made. This group of selection strategies includes the dominance strategy, the conjunctive strategy, the disjunctive strategy, the lexicographic strategy, and the aspect-deletion strategy.

1. The dominance strategy is used to search for an alternative that is no worse in all attributes and better in at least one attribute than all other options. For example, when choosing a job out of several offers, you should choose a more prestigious one, provided that in terms of other attributes (positions, pay, growth prospects, etc.) it is at least as good as the other options. This strategy eliminates some possibilities and reduces many alternatives, but usually does not lead to the choice of the best alternative, since it does not always exist. At the same time, it has been proved that if such an alternative exists, then any of the compensation strategies also allows finding it. In this case, the advantage of the dominance strategy lies in the relative ease of use.

2. The conjunctive strategy allows you to exclude alternatives that do not meet the minimum requirements for all attributes at the same time. Such a strategy is consistent with the concept of bounded rationality and leads to the choice of the first satisfactory alternative, if it exists. For example, when making a decision to purchase a car, in accordance with the conjunctive strategy, we choose a fairly prestigious model, the price of which is not higher than the allowable one, and the power and reliability are not lower than the required values. If a satisfactory solution is not found, then it is necessary to expand the list of alternatives or weaken the requirements for them for individual attributes.

3. The disjunctive strategy is that each alternative is evaluated according to its best qualities, regardless of what values the other attributes have. After that, only those alternatives that are “best” for each individual attribute are left for the final selection. For example, at first we can opt for the cheapest model, even if it is clearly inferior to other options in other qualities, then choose the most prestigious model, even if its price is too high, etc. The remaining options are excluded from further consideration.

4. The lexicographic strategy is similar to the disjunctive one, except that first the alternatives are selected that are the best among all in terms of the most important attribute. If there are several such alternatives, then among them the best ones are again determined by the most important attribute of the remaining ones, etc., until the number of options is reduced to the desired value. For example, we can choose the most prestigious models first, then the cheapest among them, and so on.

5. The aspect removal strategy resembles the lexicographic one, but is based on a different principle. First, alternatives that do not meet our requirements for the most important attribute are removed, then alternatives that do not fit for the least important attribute are excluded from the remaining ones, and so on, until one or more options remain for the final choice. So, by analogy with the previous example, we first select not the most, but quite prestigious models, then among them - quite cheap ones, etc.

As studies show, in fact, people are not limited to any one strategy, but use combinations of them. At the same time, as a rule, they try to reduce the set of alternatives to reasonable limits using elimination strategies. If after that there are several options, then among them the best one is determined using one or another compensation strategy.

Carnegie model (Political decision-making model) was formulated by G.A. Simon (H.Simon), J.March (J.March), R.Kayertom (R.Cyert), in whose scientific works it is proved that in organizations managers can make their choice of strategy in coalitions - informal alliances between several managers, equally representing the goals of the organization and the priorities of the problems.

The political model of decisions proceeds from the fact that the participants of the political system are all the actors of the organization who are involved in the goal-setting process. Since they have, as a rule, different interests, they also have different target expectations, i.e. put different demands on the organization, which inevitably leads to conflicts.

There are two types of actors in the model:

core - a group of persons who, by law or by contract, are legitimized to determine the goals of the organization in a responsible manner (for example, the board of directors of a concern);
satellite groups that influence the goal-setting process (for example, the council of the labor collective).

The goals of the organization are established in the process of negotiations between the members of the organization. This process is followed by a process of control, as a result of which specific particular goals are developed, and a learning process, in which goals are adjusted in relation to changes in the external environment. These processes do not provide a symmetrical consideration of the interests of all participants. Certain groups, usually the core, are formally legitimized to set goals. However, their decisions, depending on the actual distribution of power in the organization, can be significantly influenced, as a result of which certain concessions are made to other groups.

This model is used, as a rule, to make non-programmed decisions in conditions of uncertainty, limited information and lack of consensus about what goal to pursue or what course of action to choose.

Developing the concept of bounded rationality, James March identifies three types of constraints inherent in managers - cognitive, political and organizational. In particular, cognitive ones include attentional limitations, mental limitations, and randomness of preferences. The last type of restrictions is manifested in organizations that have the properties of organizational anarchy. J. March identifies four features of decision-making in organizations: quasi-conflict resolution, uncertainty avoidance, problem search, organizational learning. The study of these features led J. March to develop the "wastebasket" model, which describes the decision-making process in organizations as a chaotic and chaotic interaction of various "elements" (problems, decisions, participants, alternatives) that can appear and disappear randomly and independently from each other.

The descriptive model and the Carnegie model, as well as intuition, are more adequate to a turbulent external environment, when decisions are made quickly, under conditions of high uncertainty.

Incremental process model decision making was proposed by G. Mintzberg (McGill University, Montreal). This model can be used to make non-programmed decisions and the main focus in solving organizational problems is on the structural sequence of actions taken throughout the decision-making process. The main decision consists of a series of "small" choices, as the organization goes through several key points in the decision-making process, where a collision with "barriers" is possible, which G. Mintzberg called interruptions in the decision process. Interruption of the decision-making process means that the organization must return to previous decisions and repeat the cycle (stages of the decision-making process), trying to offer some new options for action (alternatives). These cycles, or "loops" according to G. Mintzberg of the process of finding a solution (alternatives, strategies, directions of action) are one of the ways to train the organization's personnel, finding an understanding of what alternatives, solutions need to be implemented. G. Mintzberg also proposed the division of the decision-making process into three phases: problem identification, development of options for management decisions, evaluation and selection, and management decision-making.

The wastebasket model was developed by Michael Cohen (M. Cohen), J. March (J. March), J. Olsen (J. Olsen) in order to explain the pattern of decision-making in conditions of extreme uncertainty, which the above-named authors defined by the term "organized anarchy".

"Organized anarchy" does not rely on normal vertical hierarchies and rational decision-making bureaucracy. It is characterized by three features: problematic preferences; fuzzy and poorly understood decision-making technology; staff turnover. "Organized anarchy" is characteristic of organizations that are characterized by frequent changes and a collegial non-bureaucratic environment.

The model of "organized anarchy" was developed on the basis of the analysis of decision-making processes in universities as typical representatives of organized anarchies, which are characterized by:

incompatible and ill-defined goals
obscure / fuzzy causes of problems, technologies, environmental conditions, consequences of actions
insufficient interpretation of the development of the past
fuzzy competence and lack of succession of decision makers. The latter refers rather not to Russian, but to European and American universities.

In organized anarchies, the decision-making process is often carried out according to the "wastebasket" model, into which the following streams flow:

problems - interests, requirements and claims of internal and external (in relation to the organization) groups
solutions - the potential of solution opportunities (ideas, technologies, products) is used, which develop regardless of real problems
reasons for decisions - situations in which certain decisions must be made
participants are actors who contribute to the definition of a problem and alternatives to its solution.

The unique feature of the garbage bin model is that the decision-making process does not look like a sequence of steps that starts with a problem and ends with a solution. Decisions in this model are the result of independent streams of events occurring within an organization that are relevant to the decision-making process: a stream of problems, streams of potential decisions, decision-makers, and opportunities for choice.

Given the concept of four streams general scheme decision-making in the organization becomes random. Problems, proposed solutions, participants, and solutions chosen all pass through the organization as in a sense, the organization is a big wastebasket. in which all these streams are mixed. If the problem, the solution, and the decision maker are randomly connected at one point, then the problem can be resolved; but if the solution does not fit the given problem, then the problem may remain unresolved. Thus, considering the organization as a whole in an extreme degree of uncertainty, one can see problems that are not being solved and a solution that is not being implemented, because. the situation is so complex that the solutions, problems and outcomes are completely independent of each other.

The decision process in the trash can model typically includes the following phases:

problem definitions - the four above flows are identified
negotiations – search for coalitions and bargaining for compromise solutions
persuasion - “selling” a compromise solution to less active participants
bureaucratic phase - concretization (operationalization) of decisions and supplementing them with instructions for execution.

Consequences of using the dustbin model:

1. solutions can be offered even when the problem is not identified and does not even exist;

2. choices can be made without problem solving;

3. problems may remain unresolved in the organization;

4. but some problems are solved.

In computer modeling under the conditions of the "garbage bin" model, the most important problems were often solved, because it became possible to link problems to relevant decisions and participants, in such a way that a good choice of management decision was made.

Theory of local increments C. Lindblom. Charles Lindblom (Ch. Lindblom) is a well-known American researcher in the field of strategic decision making, professor of economics and political science at Yale University. For a long time he served as director of the Center for Social and Political Studies, as well as a political adviser to US government agencies. His theoretical work is known for criticizing rational ("synoptic") decision-making models in organizations and developing an original theory of local (or separate) increments.

Charles Lindblom describes two approaches to making managerial decisions – synoptic and local increment strategy. Within the framework of the synoptic approach, managers strive for a "rational deductive ideal", using the principle "the end determines the means" to make decisions. The strategy of local increments, or the method of sequential limited comparisons, is characterized by the fact that management decisions are made with the aim of small sequential changes that are made in small increments. C. Lindblom emphasizes such characteristics of this strategy as limitedness, orientation towards means, reconstructionism, serialization, practicality and fragmentation.

The incremental model was created to make policy decisions. In real life, consensus on the main goals among powerful groups of decision makers is almost impossible. In addition, it is almost impossible to unambiguously assess the consequences of actions. Agreement can only be reached on small steps and improvements. Therefore, decisive political changes, even if they seem very necessary, remain out of the discussion. Participants in the search for a solution look only for ends and means that are in a familiar area. Modification of the existing situation is carried out in small steps. There is no final solution, only constant new adjustments. Process phases include:

formulation of the original problem
attempts to solve the problem
elimination of errors and weaknesses and reformulation of the problem.

Basically, the process is trial and error with feedback.
concrete example The long-term negotiations between the USSR and the USA on the problem of limiting strategic offensive arms can serve as an application of such a model.

Decision-making model by V. Vroom . V. Vroom is a contemporary Canadian researcher of organizational behavior, psychologist, teacher and consultant in the field of management sciences. laureate of the competition of American psychologists of the Foundation. G. Ford. He has taught at universities in the US and Canada, most recently as a professor of management at the University of Wales. The main views of V. Vroom and the results of his research are presented by him in such works as “A New Look at Management Decision Making”, 1960: “Leadership and Decision Making”, 1973 (together with P. Yetton); "New leadership: participation in the management of the organization", 1988 (together with A. Yago).

Victor Vroom studied in detail the processes of managerial decision-making and various options participation of subordinates. On the basis of these studies, he formulates the possible decision-making styles of the leader, designated as autocratic, advisory and group. The effectiveness of each of these styles depends on the specific situation and is evaluated taking into account factors such as the quality of the decision, the approval of the decision by subordinates and the willingness to implement it, as well as the time required to make a decision. On the basis of these conclusions, V. Vroom proposed a normative decision-making model that instructs the manager to choose a certain style depending on the situation.

The decision-making model of V. Vroom allows the manager to determine the extent to which he should involve subordinates in the development and adoption of managerial decisions. At the same time, it is assumed that he should concentrate both on the problem to be solved and on the situation in which the decision is made.

The model represents a decision tree.B. Vroom and F. Yetton suggested that the degree to which subordinates are involved in decision-making depends on certain factors of the situation. Seven factors have been identified:

requirements for the quality of decision making (TC)
requirements for the commitment of subordinates (TL)
manager awareness (IR)
task structure (TS)
probability of support of subordinates (VP)
alignment of the goals of the organization and its members (SO)
conflict between subordinates (KP).

In the process of revising the model, V. Vroom and A. Yago added three more factors:

awareness of subordinates (IP);
time limit (TS);
geographical dispersion of subordinates (GR).

Each of these factors affects a specific decision-making style. The first eight factors formed the basis of the decision tree developed by V. Vroom and A. Yago. Each of them is rated on a “low / high” scale, and depending on the combination of factors, a specific decision-making style is chosen.

To make decisions in the model, depending on the situation and the degree of involvement of subordinates, V. Vroom and F. Eatton suggested using five styles located on a continuum from an extremely authoritarian to a pronounced group (partnership) approach:

authoritarian I (AI): the leader makes the decision independently;
authoritarian II (AII): the leader receives the necessary information from his subordinates and then independently makes a decision;
advisory I (CI): the manager consults with each subordinate individually, and then he makes a decision;
advisory II (SP): the leader consults with the group, and then independently makes a decision;
group (partnership) II (GII): the leader sets out the task to the group and together with it makes a decision. In the early version of the model, there was also a GI style, but later it was excluded, since it differed little from the GII style.

The degree of participation of subordinates depends not so much on the personality of the leader, but on the nature of the situation.

These five styles form a chain, starting with autocratic decision-making (A1 and A 2), then consultative (C 1 and C 2) and ending with full participation (G 2). The application of each of these styles depends on the characteristics of the situation or problem.

Adding to the above decision-making styles, the authors emphasize that in any case, the manager retains official authority and bears full responsibility for the decision made. At the same time, the degree of participation of subordinates does not depend on the personality of the leader, but on the nature of the situation.

The decision-making model of V. Vroom, which is shown in the figure, is the most valid leadership model at present.

M. Croisier organization model (conflict model) . Michel Crozier (M. Crozier) is a well-known French sociologist, director of the Center for the Sociology of Organizations in Paris. For a long time he was engaged in the study of intra-organizational processes and the interaction of the main participants in the organization. Since the majority of modern organizations is a rational bureaucracy, M. Croisier's attention was focused on the study of management and decision-making processes in bureaucratic organizations.

By studying decision-making processes and organizational behavior. Michel Croisier developed the conflict-game concept of organization. According to this concept, any organization is a so-called ensemble of games. The game here refers to a special type of relationship that develops between the participants in order to achieve the most advantageous position within the organization. This is understood as the desire of players to preserve the freedom of their own actions and decisions. Moreover, the strength of the players and, therefore, their chances of winning in such a game depend on how much they control the main sources of uncertainty within the organization. Uncertainty control allows players to retain the freedom to make decisions and maintain the balance of power in the organization. The regulation of uncertainty eliminates the power of those who control it.

The conflict decision model proceeds from the fact that serious decisions are associated with feelings such as hatred, fear, jealousy, irritation, and above all with stress. It has been proven that for optimal behavior of a decision maker, stress should be at an average level. When the stress is very low, the decision maker neglects the search for information, and when the stress is too high, the decision maker retreats before the costs and makes an emotional decision or does not make any at all. The decision maker consciously or unconsciously asks the following questions:

Are there serious risks if nothing is done? If not, then conflict-free doing nothing is advisable;
Will there be serious risks if something is changed? If not, then a conflict-free margin change is appropriate;
Is it realistic to hope to find a better solution? If not, then it is advisable to shift the responsibility for the decision to others (defensive avoidance);
Is there enough time available to look up information and think? If not, then an extreme stressful situation (hypervigilance) occurs, which leads to the nearest acceptable solution.

The optimal result is obtained when the answer to all the above questions is “yes”, i.e. medium stress (vigilance) takes place. In this case, the decision maker is motivated to carefully collect and process the necessary information.

Strategic model organization M. Croisier helps to better understand the features of managerial decision-making processes and allows us to draw the following conclusions.

First, managerial decisions in organizations are always made under conditions of uncertainty. Moreover, the source of uncertainty can be not only the external environment, but also the behavior of the members of the organization themselves, who pursue their own goals and try to improve their position.

Secondly, managers try to “program” as many managerial decisions as possible in order to increase management efficiency and reduce their dependence on specialists who control the main uncertainties that affect the organization.

Thirdly, subordinates strive to maintain freedom in decision-making and resist bureaucratic pressure from managers. And fourth, in order to maintain the balance of power in the organization, subordinates deliberately limit the information intended for managers, which leads to the need for decision-making under conditions of uncertainty and, therefore, strengthens the power of specialists who have complete information.

The results of the study give grounds to conclude that the purpose of the abstract work has been achieved - typical errors in the development and adoption of managerial decisions have been considered.
In general, the most important tasks of the abstract work have been solved:
disclosed the content and classification of management decisions;
describes the basic procedures, operations for the development of management decisions, the most typical mistakes that are made in the decision-making process.
A management decision is a set of measures that are aimed at resolving a given problem in the form of an order, an order in writing or orally.
The decision making process includes:
analysis of the situation;
generation of alternatives;
decision-making;
organizing the implementation of the decision.
There are two groups of factors that errors are determined in the process of making managerial decisions: internal and external.
Internal factors are associated with the personality of the leader who makes the decision, external factors related to the conditions in which the decision was made and the influence of other people.
In order to minimize errors in the decision-making process, it is necessary to:
collect as much as possible complete information, which relates to the problem being solved;
conduct consideration and careful analysis of the maximum possible number of alternative solutions;
strive to avoid prejudices, erroneous judgments, not to fall under the influence of others;
strive to use aids that would help in decision making

Introduction Contents References Excerpt from the work

The increasing intellectualization of managerial work places ever higher demands on the professional competence of a manager of any level, whose main purpose is to provide efficient functioning, sustainable development of the entrusted subdivision, organization (organization - according to Article 48 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the broadest definition of all types of legal entities).
In order for an organization, a department to work effectively, the manager needs to analyze a number of alternative possibilities and choose from this range the option that is most preferable at the current time. The overall success of the business largely depends on the effectiveness of the management decision. If the organization's management does not own the technologies by which they prepare, accept, eat management decisions, he is practically incapable of managing in modern conditions.
The process of making important managerial decisions and responsibility for them represent a heavy moral burden for managers, especially for higher levels of management, where the cost of a mistake is especially high.
These circumstances determine the relevance of the study, the purpose of which is to consider typical errors in the development and adoption of managerial decisions.
Tasks of abstract work:
reveal the content and classification of management decisions;
describe the main procedures, operations for the development of management decisions, the most typical mistakes that are made in the decision-making process.

Introduction 3
1. Management decisions - content and classification 4
2. The main procedures, operations for the development of management decisions, the most typical errors 13
Conclusion 18
References 20

1. Civil Code Russian Federation. Parts 1,2,3 and 4 - M.: Eksmo, 2013. - 512 p.
2. Ansoff I. Strategic management. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2010. - 344 p.
3. Vesnin V.R. Management. - M.: Prospekt, 2012. - 624 p.
4. Vikhansky O.S. , Naumov A.A. Management. - M.: Infra-M, 2011. - 576 p.
5. Gerchikova I.N. Management. - M.: Unity-Dana, 2010. - 512 p.
6. Daft R. Management. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2012. - 656 p.
7. Lapygin Yu.N., Lapygin D.Yu. Management decisions. - M.: Eksmo, 2009. - 448 p.
8. Meskon M., Albert M., Hedouri F. Fundamentals of management. - M: Williams, 2011. - 672 p.

Management decisions made along the management hierarchy can, in turn, be divided into decisions made at the following levels: the level of the basic system (in other words, the decision affects the entire organization); the level of the subsystem (the decision affects any division of the organization); the level of individual elements of the system (the decision affects a specific employee of the organization). From the point of view of the initial methods for developing management decisions, we can talk about: graphic methods. They use graphic-analytical approaches (decomposition of large systems, strip charts, network models and methods, block diagrams); mathematical methods. Formalize relationships, representations, proportions, resources, events, terms; heuristic methods. Scenario development, situational models, expert estimates. From the standpoint of the organizational design of management decisions, we can distinguish: tough decisions. An unambiguous way of their implementation is set; flexible solutions. Adjusted in accordance with the development of the system, changes in the conditions of its functioning; normative decisions. Certain parameters are set, in accordance with which the processes in the system proceed; orienting decisions. Certain directions, "beacons" for the development of the system are set. The division of management decisions according to the causes of occurrence is as follows: initiative decisions, for example, taking the initiative in the provision of goods, services; program decisions, for example, the inclusion of a certain management object in an approved program of activities; decisions made on the basis of instructions (orders) of higher authorities; situational decisions taken in accordance with emerging circumstances; episodic and periodic decisions are made, for example, in seasonal production (agriculture). By scope, management decisions are divided into: organizational; technical; technological; economic, etc. According to the functional content, management decisions are: controlling; organizational; planned; predictive. By the nature of the development organization, one can single out: individual management decisions; collegial management decisions; collective management decisions. The choice of the method of organizing the development of a management decision is made in depending on: the competence of the manager; the resources available; the skill level of the team; the nature of the tasks to be solved, etc. From the standpoint of the nature of the goals of managerial decisions, one can single out: from one year to five years); strategic decisions (decision implementation time is more than five years). For greater clarity, the above information is summarized in Table 1 on page 9. Table 1 Classification of management decisions According to the management hierarchy level of the basic system; subsystem level; ;mathematical methods;heuristic methodsOrganizational design flexible;rigid;normative;orientingFor reasons of origininitiative;programmatic;by prescription;situational;episodic and periodic Scope of actionorganizational;technical;technological;economic;others planned; predictive By the nature of the development, individual; collegiate; collective; The nature of the goals is operational; tactical; strategic There are impulsive, inert, cautious, risky and balanced decisions. Authors of impulsive decisions easily generate an unlimited number of ideas. Unfortunately, these ideas are by no means always evaluated, tested, and refined. Therefore, decisions are made "on the spur of the moment", insufficiently substantiated and reliable. Inert managerial decisions are the result of an extremely cautious and deep search. They are extremely rarely original, as a rule, the generation of ideas is given "at the mercy" of control and clarifying actions. When making cautious decisions, the manager supercritically evaluates all possible options. Therefore, among these decisions there is even less novelty and originality compared to inert ones. Risky managerial decisions, as a rule, are made by self-confident managers, therefore the hypotheses put forward are not always carefully substantiated. Managers who are distinguished by an attentive and critical attitude to their actions, like as a rule, they make balanced decisions. The above types of decisions are most often characteristic of the operational management process. Strategic and tactical management are characterized by decisions based on economic analysis. The following functions of management decisions are distinguished: guide. Decisions are made on the basis of a long-term strategy for the development of the enterprise, but are specified by a variety of tasks; coordinating. In order to implement solutions with the appropriate quality and within the approved deadlines, it is necessary to coordinate the actions of the performers; motivating. This function is implemented by a system of organizational measures (decrees, orders), economic incentives, social assessments. The main procedures, operations for the development of managerial decisions, the most typical mistakes The procedure for making managerial decisions includes: situation analysis; problem identification; generation of alternatives; decisions; monitoring and evaluation of results. Four types of event flows can be attributed to the procedure for making managerial decisions in an organization: problems - the gap between the desired performance of work and actual activity. A problem may or may not lead to a decision. At the same time, it is possible to make a decision and not solve the problem; potential solutions are ideas proposed by someone for adoption. The idea can be brought into the organization by both new and long-term employees. Certain ideas can be pushed by their "parents" everywhere, regardless of the existing problems. Here it is necessary to take into account the fact of the independent existence of problems and solutions; decision-making participants are employees of the organization who differ significantly in their ideas, education, experience, perception of problems and assessments; Favorable opportunities for choice - cases of decision-making in the organization. When there is a match between the problem and the proposed solution, the problem is often resolved. The first step in identifying the problem is to recognize and identify the symptoms of the difficulty or the opportunity. So, for example, very frequent symptoms of "ill health" of the organization are: high staff turnover; small profit; numerous conflicts; weak sales; low quality of products, services; low labor productivity; excessive costs, etc. In order to identify the causes of problems, they collect and analyze external and internal (relative to the organization) information. Information, the ability to use it, are decisive moments in the process of making managerial decisions. To make quality decisions, managers need high-quality information, which is characterized by five features: reliability. The information must be free of errors; modernity. The information is based on the latest data; comprehensiveness. The information covers the whole range of issues; conciseness. Information is presented in a form that allows quick and easy decision making; Relevance. The information needed to make the decision is provided. Once the problem is diagnosed, the manager must understand what can be done about it. Undoubtedly, both the manager and the organization may not have enough resources to solve a number of problems. In addition to defining the problem, it is necessary for the manager to determine decision-making criteria (standards according to which alternative choices are evaluated). Next, alternative solutions are generated. Problems. As a rule, they are limited to a few, the most desirable alternatives. In other words, there is a formation different options decisions aimed at achieving one goal

"Decisions that are made at all management levels, in some cases lead to disorganization" Ostrovsky E.V. Psychology of management. - M.: Vuzovsky textbook, 2011. P. 139. Errors in management decisions are interconnected with violations of the principles of company management. When an erroneous, thoughtless strategic decision is made, as a result, the company's strategy itself and all decisions that are made within its framework will contain an error. The following errors can be distinguished in managerial decisions.

pendulum solutions. These decisions have the nature of erroneous ones and consist in “changing” the erroneous decision by trying to “return” to what was previously. For example, during the perestroika period, older people complain that under socialism it was still not as bad as in present time, it is necessary to return the old order and everything will return "to its own circles." Another example: the company received a decision to reduce the sales department. The marketing department was entrusted with the functions performed by the sales department (in view of the increase in the total volume of work), and ceased to conduct marketing research. The marketing strategy began to lose effectiveness. With a new solution, the sales department was restored again.

Decisions that duplicate or (much worse) contradict the organizational order. Decisions of this kind should appear in the event of a change in management personnel. Any leader brings his “charter” to the company, i.e. determines its own rules, which in some cases must contradict established customs, organizational procedures, defined by job descriptions or other internal regulatory documents. Duplicating the order of organization is more dangerous than you might think. Functions are divided into two unequal elements: some are indispensable, those that the authorities recall, others are second-level, since no one additionally points to them. In this way, not only the dominance of the order over the previously regulated order is created, but the latter is also destroyed and placed under reasoning.

Solutions that ignore organizational hierarchy. In this case, the very principle of management "on command" is violated, which means that top management receives decisions that are addressed to middle managers, and also middle managers are addressed further "down" in the hierarchy. If this principle is violated, the decision is addressed through the hierarchy. For example, the general director issues orders addressed to the chief of a certain department, bypassing even the leadership of the department.

Decisions "that are tied" to the organizational hierarchy. This type of solution implies dominance over the function of the structure, if new structures are created to solve the problem, while the already existing units (functionally suitable for the implementation of these functions) work with 50% saturation. This should also include decisions in which rules prevail over function (for example, officials).

Contradictory decisions. Such decisions, contrary to those generally accepted earlier, pose a problem for performers: what should actually be done? Often, such conditions arise if previously generally accepted orders and other acts containing information and instructions that contradict the newly approved ones are not canceled in the newly adopted ones. Similar conditions also appear if the principle of unity of command is violated and employees acquire two instructions that contain conflicting instructions. For example, the foreman of the shift gives the command "break for lunch", and the foreman of the site orders to work without a break in order to speed up the production of products. Traditionally, employees in this case give preference to the order of the highest level, while neglecting the instructions of the laid-back foreman.

Impossible (adventurous) solutions. The essence of such decisions is based on a reassessment of the company's capabilities, non-identical perception and understanding of the conditions for making a decision. The following decisions are traditionally not executed at all, and when they are, they lead to unexpected results that are opposite to the goal.

belated decisions. Decisions of this type are made by managers as a result of the danger of overshooting and getting the wrong decision if an unreasonable amount of time is spent developing operational measures. In this case, a detailed solution is relevant for the past, i.e. adopted later than necessary, and no matter how well thought out, detailed and tested, it has already lost its modernity in the changed conditions.

Demotivating solutions. “Decisions that use inadequate motivation (not corresponding to the socio-psychological collective characteristics), for example, the use of coercion motivation where it was possible to use the incentive, or the assignment of such benefits, the receipt of which does not correspond to the needs of the staff” Litvak B.G. Development of a management solution. - M.: Delo, 2013. S. 152. in case of successful implementation of the solution, or instructs the free distribution of tights in a team, 82% consisting of men.

Wrong decisions. These decisions are made as a result of limited information about the problem condition, misinformation, generally accepted as correct, incorrect interpretation of company performance, i.e. based on judgment, not based on the present state of the environment and the company.

Undeveloped solutions. These solutions are required for this company, which are continuously reported, but no one receives them. They belong to the most dangerous kind of decision, because even the wrong decision will give some result. In some cases, inaction or avoidance of the need to decide, ignoring the changes required by the company, and moreover, attempts to artificially restrain the development necessary for the company will lead to stagnation and at any time are accompanied by a loss of enthusiasm among employees, customers and those with whom the company interacts at all her degrees. Such a company is perceived as "dying".

In the work of a manager, subjective and objective errors in decision-making are distinguished.

Subjective errors:

1. The habit of getting a decision according to a chosen template (“We did this all the time”)
2. Overestimating likely success ("I'm definitely lucky")
3. Appeal to your own experiment ("My experience should make the right choice")
4. Attitude to subjective desires (“I very much desire this”)
5. Underestimating risk (“It won’t happen to me”)
6. Installation on the most feasible option (“But we will do everything quickly”)
7. The need to be proven right ("I'm always right in the end")
8. Fitting information to your idea (option) (“My idea must work”)
9. An abstract manner of making a decision (“the reason is clear, and then we’ll figure it out”)
10. The pressure of failure ("I've been burned more than once")

Objective errors:

1. Oversaturation of the decision being made, which as a result is not always executed
2. New decisions contradict previous ones
3. When making a decision, unrealistic deadlines are set. Everyone understands, but nevertheless they get a decision
4. New solutions duplicate solutions that were made before, but do not work
5. The decision being made turns out to be half-hearted due to the situation.
6. There is a certain probability of conflict in the decisions in the implementation
7. The decision is made by the majority, although the judgment of the minority must be correct
8. Decisions are made with the understanding that errors will be corrected during its implementation.
9. Due to lack of time, the step-by-step decision-making procedure is neglected
10. No one to prepare information for decision making